MBX

Mount&Blade Expansion => The Last Days => Topic started by: Ron Losey on November 03, 2011, 03:17:48 AM

Title: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ron Losey on November 03, 2011, 03:17:48 AM
Quote
RCM for TLD3.1 http://www.wupload.com/file/2662215892/RCM_TLD31.rar

(Finally got both the mod and the new M&B enhanced version to download ... my Internet connection is REALLY bad these days.)

Guys, bad news ... your equipment stats are all over the board, they look like you took them from a random number generator.  Sticks effectively do more damage than swords.  Bows will penetrate a steel helmet but have exactly zero percent chance of stopping an unarmored man, even if you hit him square in the chest at point blank range.  Any attempt at getting "game balance" like this will be utterly futile, and tweaking a few numbers will just make it more absurd (if that is possible) but equally futile.  It's a hopeless mess right now.

Now, I don't have a great deal of time to help these days, but I'll do what I can.  I can make the changes (if you send me the Python code) or I can tell you what to use for baselines and you can work on it ... either way is fine by me.  Either way, this is going to have to be done as soon as possible ... unless somebody was really trying for that comic book/D&D "I don't mind having an arrow stuck through my liver because I have HIT POINTS!" feel to the combat sequences.  (Or the movie look where the tin-man armor was apparently made of paper.)  Because that's surely where the numbers are sitting right now.

Sorry about that ... but I did say in previous posts, personal mail, and whatever, that somebody should tell me when they're ready to do the equipment stats, before making a release.  Because obviously, item stats based on Native are not likely to give a feel of intensity, or believability, or much of anything else besides that nagging feeling that certain critical elements of the program were written by monkeys and/or kindergarten children who watch too much television.

So tell me how you prefer to handle this, and I'll try to work within your work flow/timetable/whatever.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: GetAssista on November 03, 2011, 03:36:56 AM
Hey, Ron!

We remembered about your proposition of developing proper RCM for TLD all the way, don't worry ;) You did not get any message prior to the release because TLD weapon/armor stats did not arrive to a finalized state yet. It's a huge work that would have shifted the release date significantly, and we did not want that. You are right, current weapon starts are messed up somewhat, even related to standard MB damage model. We will continue tweaking them with upcoming patches, in the direction of usual M&B damage model.

I'll PM you necessary txt and py files on weekend, and you would have complete freedom in choosing their stats. I personally have no doubt in your abililty to deliver an excellent damage model. We, sadly, had no time for that.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 03, 2011, 05:13:08 AM
Thanks for the vote of confidence ... although, in all honesty, I don't think anyone was going to question my abilities on the subject.  Of course, I'll still be nervous about it.  Then again, my way of making sure I got them right is to see if a knife duel in the game causes flashbacks ... maybe I'm going at this the wrong way.

Anyway, roger that.  Awaiting the files.  Not sure how long it will take, as you noted ... but hopefully not too long.  I developed the original RCM for ONR in 48 hours ... so it can't take all THAT long, unless I just get really sidetracked.  I do not, however, care to repeat the 48 hour programming marathon, so don't expect that kind of performance again.

And for the record, they're messed up more than "somewhat" ... they are totally screwed up beyond all comprehension.  It will be a total "start over, from the top" project.  But that's OK ... that's the way the RCM rescale works.

I've read all of Tolkien's stuff, but I don't claim to be an expert on it ... I may have to collect opinions on the desired "feel" of certain items.  Or, regardless, there may be bugs in that regard.  I make no promises on that front ... we'll just have to iron those issues out as we go.

Standing by for those files.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Merlkir on November 03, 2011, 07:38:27 AM
Feel free to ask Tolkien-related questions, I'm sure the "magical/mythical" nature of some of the items will prove a challenge.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Triglav on November 03, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
Cool that you're on it.

Keep in mind several things.

Our basic division of armours, not saying it's a good one, but to signify why some stuff is as is was. Orcs generally not beyond 25, men around 30, max 40, and elves and dwarves up to 50.
This to make battles balanced where we wanted them to go, so that orcs are cannonfodder, easily killed, elves and dwarves and Gondor knights are Terminator tanks, hard to beat...you get the idea. So when you change stuff, kinda try to devise it so that an orc counts for half a man and a third of an elf roughtly. We like our low level orcs to be one hit killed. They could pack more of a punch than they do now though.

Also price/quality match. It is important to keep weapon diversity and quality. So that starting characters have something to look forward to that their lvl1 weapon is shit and they have to work hard for the next and next up to top quality eventually.

So before you go actually changing numbers would be good if you devise a formula to encompass all that TLD wants to achieve, then we can check it over, then go into implementation.

Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MadVader on November 03, 2011, 01:19:11 PM
What I always felt was missing was more stat diversity and subtle stat tweaks that make items distinct (also names.. more distinct and less generic names). There should be some upgrade paths for different quality items that belong to a single faction, or stat trade offs for similar items.
(How do you know which are more valuable? Look at who is wearing them.)

You should note that some of the items are already tweaked to be more appropriate, but some have more generic stats. I suggest a more evolutionary approach and not ripping everything to shreds, but that depends on what we want to do with the item stats.

P.S. I was pestering GA to do this for ages, and he actually did a lot of work, so I find the OP tone offensive. Even if you think you are the God of Item Stats, you simply don't talk down people like that.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 03, 2011, 01:49:30 PM
It would be nice to see weapon lengths closer to the visual representation of the model: there's things like the Rivendell sword with a 94 length -- but the model is significantly shorter than the Lorien longsword, which has an 87 length.

Light armour costs just as much as heavy armour... and speaking of heavy armour, the Dunedain Ranger leather armours are not only expensive and provide very little protection, but weigh more than some medium-heavy armour sets -- 19 weight on it.

As for realism... that's always a tricky thing in these games. We (in the grand, M&B-loving community sense) are attempting to abstract some pretty complex physics along with wild elements of chance with really basic numbers. It never quite gets realistic. Nor should it, necessarily.  Whether or not it's entertaining to play is the most important thing, with the notion of capturing the feel of the source material perhaps coming a close second.

M&B has the infamous shield bug. The AI won't take cover from arrows. You can't duck. All these, and far more, guarantee that realism is a relative and precarious thing. So long as the items play with some sense of balance of utility or function among the weapons, it's all cool.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 03, 2011, 05:20:54 PM
Merlkir:  Actually, "magic" is easy to do on a RCM rescale.  Once you have a scale for real stats, just figure how much more strength the "magic" properties add.  If Mithril or Dragon Scales are supposed to be impenetrable, just figure them like 200% of steel ... that should make it so that even depleted uranium antitank rounds wouldn't go through.

Triglav:  I understood the basic breakdown in craftsmanship.  I have read Tolkien's work, even if it was a little while back.  I fully intended to represent this, however, in a more logical way ... after all, metal is metal, so the difference between light and heavy armors should be more significant than the craftsmanship penalty/bonus.  Fortunately, RCM numbers give me more latitude in which to work ... I estimate that common (non-"magic" or special material) elven armors will likely go up to 80 or more, so the absolute heaviest orc armors topping out at around 55 or 60 (and most everything else much lighter) will be a pretty serious penalty for them.  That was how I handled the RCM optional package for the last version of TLD, and it seemed to work pretty well.

Madvader:  Wait and watch.  I've done this before.  Triglav, for one, knows exactly what I'm going to do - he was part of the original item data conversions for Onin-no-Ran.  The results are impressive.

Northcott:  You may not be familiar with my work.  Wait ... you will be.  Most of the others here are familiar with my "realistic combat model" conversions.  They're real enough to be considered a "simulator" of simple-weapons combat, even in spite of the little bugs inherent to M&B.  I have to really twist the stats to get it to work, so the final numeric data really looks odd - but it works, to a precision that lets players use common logic to decide what a weapon will do.  If being hit with an arrow would be really bad in real life, it will be exactly that bad on your character when I get done.

The weapon lengths being off ... that's what I was afraid of.  That could take forever to work out.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: WindusAndar on November 03, 2011, 07:33:40 PM
Dear Ron,

I have a mostly off-topic question to pose to you, if you don't mind.

In the last version of TLD for .808, was the RCM model developed by you implemented in the download package, or did it have to be downloaded, installed and used separately?

Which of these systems would be followed in the current version of TLD?

With regards,
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 03, 2011, 08:20:25 PM
WindusAndar:

If I recall correctly, the optional RCM for TLD .808 was included in the downloads, but you had to manually switch out the files.  That was largely irrelevant, however, since none of the rest of the game was designed or balanced for RCM - so it made the combat more interesting, but the campaign largely unplayable.  There were massive balance issues in the .808 version anyway, and the RCM conversion heavily drew attention to them.  That was a truly unfortunate side effect of trying to do this "optional", and a mistake I would not care to see repeated.

Presumably, according to various communication with the principal programmers, the intention on this version is for me to set up a customized model (base RCM stats plus variations for magic, trolls, and whatever), and then we tweak it from there.  There is little logical reason to try to build and balance a version around Native stats - they're illogical and inherently lacking for game balance, even at best, and absurd and catastrophic to the game at worst.

That said, I am sure the first version will be a little rough ... I was not really involved in the planning phase for the various weapon and armor models, so I will have to try to catch up.  So this will probably look like an initial rough version followed by a whole bunch of minor tweaks released over the next series of patches.  That sort of refining is expected, and as it works out, necessary... especially on something this complex.  I had sort of hoped that some of this could be done before the initial release, to speed the patching process ... but that didn't happen... so we play the cards we are dealt.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: WindusAndar on November 03, 2011, 08:25:42 PM
Thank you, Ron. :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Shazbot on November 03, 2011, 09:58:28 PM
Also remember that fodder orcs are for most orcs.  There is no reason why, say, the Black Uruks of Barad-Dur can't be armoured like decently-armoured human troops.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 04, 2011, 12:14:22 AM
Also remember that fodder orcs are for most orcs.  There is no reason why, say, the Black Uruks of Barad-Dur can't be armoured like decently-armoured human troops.

Exact troop balance comes later.  First we set up the items to reflect reasonable stats, then comes the tweaking of who gets what and how many.

The total difference between armors will be about one weight class per quality distinction, i.e. well-made medium armors roughly matching shoddy but heavier armor.  So the heaviest of the orc armors will likely match what most human troops would have for protective properties, albeit at a greater weight penalty, reflecting that they are compensating for poor craftsmanship with more iron.  (Never underestimate the protective properties of simply wearing more metal.)  Armors that are both well crafted and heavy will have an advantage in protection, as long as you don't define "protection" as "the ability to run away quickly".

(Personally, I find that in real-life deadly force encounters, the ability to run away offers superb protection.  Then again, I don't really need to win an epic war against the dark hordes of the forces of darkness ... just saving my own skin from some dumb but extremely violent would-be mugger is good enough in those situations.)

---------------------------------------------

Anyway, I think I can handle it ... let's wait until we have a rough draft before assembling comments, because I suspect that about 98% of this whole line of discussion will be either rendered totally moot or the direction of the commentary will need to go a totally different way. 

Seriously, everybody ... we've gone through this before.  This is not even the first time TLD has been converted to RCM stats.  But it's going to be easier to do the conversion than to explain every detail.  So everybody just wait and watch for a bit ... and then we'll all collect data for the tweaks after a rough draft is out.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MadVader on November 04, 2011, 01:48:19 AM
I would have preferred to see item stat rebalancing based on the current (i.e. Native) stat sets and ranges. It worked for Native and other mods, it can work for TLD, "realism" or not.
However, all help is appreciated, even if we end up with two item file variants.
I guess that means we'll still need help with the normal item stats variant, or simply GA will tweak them as we go, and as players report errors and inconsistencies.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 04, 2011, 02:19:27 AM
Eh? Native worked with its stats... but it didn't seem anything special. Never bothered with anything but the bastard-sword, in Native (you HAVE to use a shield).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 04, 2011, 03:53:45 AM
I would have preferred to see item stat rebalancing based on the current (i.e. Native) stat sets and ranges. It worked for Native and other mods, it can work for TLD, "realism" or not.
However, all help is appreciated, even if we end up with two item file variants.
I guess that means we'll still need help with the normal item stats variant, or simply GA will tweak them as we go, and as players report errors and inconsistencies.

No, "Native" does not work at all with its stats.  Sticks effectively do more damage than swords, if the target has any armor at all.  Human heads are twice as hard as steel helmets.  You can put an arrow right through somebody's heart and absolutely nothing happens.  Axes the size of stop signs can be swung about like they're made of plastic, so there's no logic to using a more reasonable-looking weapon.  The Native stats work the way the damage model works on "Pac-Man" ... only within the assumptions of the game, with no correlation to any real-world events whatsoever.  Using those purely game-limited assumptions, you can put something together that will play ... but like the pen-and-paper D&D games, those numbers exist in a vacuum and only apply to the game.  The Native stats are inherently flawed to the point that tweaking them is just running the problem around in a circle.

If you're not familiar with the RCM mods, just wait and see what it looks like.  The combat is more intense, the equipment is more valuable (i.e. a little armor is not a difference of 4 hit points - it's the difference between minimal damage and getting your head cut off), and there is logic to selecting certain equipment for certain jobs.  Common sense comes into play - you realize that charging into battle naked is a bad idea, or that trying to use really massively huge weapons could actually work against you.  It's an all-around improved game experience.  It just requires that you quit thinking in terms of D&D dice rolls and try it.

Wait and see.  If you have any sense of realism or logic about your gaming, you'll like the change.  Pretty much everybody does, unless they were just trying for that Japanese-animation chop-sockey-flick swing-around-an-axe-the-size-of-a-stop-sign feeling.  Personally, that effect bugs the heck out of me, and I'm not the only one.

Some of the other guys know exactly what I'm going to do.  Triglav was actually one of the original testers when this was first developed for ONR (and could probably set it up almost as fast as I could).  Some of the others are veterans of other RCM-mod projects, including the optional package for TLD .808, and so know quite well where this is headed.  It's been assumed since the last .808 release that I would be doing the damage numbers for the next TLD version - I had that conversation with AW, then after he vanished, again with GetAssista.  Don't worry about it - we all know what we're doing, and this was already in the plan.

And as stated, the initial versions will no doubt be crude ... we will tweak them from there.  That's part of the process.  It's just debugging.  Don't anybody panic about that.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MadVader on November 04, 2011, 05:03:27 AM
OK, please consult heavily with GetAssista, who has the most detailed ideas about what item stats  effects should be like. I do have my ideas too, but it's counter-productive at this moment to have another guy disagreeing with everybody else. :)
I'm sure more realistic or "realistic" combat tweaks make some players happy, but please keep in mind there are also thousands of players enjoying many fine mods that build on the basic Native setup. It is sad if some people can't play great mods because of minor battle damage inconsistencies, but luckily they are a small minority.
(Also, a more humble and open-minded approach always works wonders, and gets you less enemies-per-post. :))
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: GetAssista on November 04, 2011, 05:36:07 AM
I'm sure more realistic or "realistic" combat tweaks make some players happy, but please keep in mind there are also thousands of players enjoying many fine mods that build on the basic Native setup.
I think we will do same feat as was done with TLD808, where RCM item_kinds + modile.ini were distributed in addition to classical edition, so that anyone can swap files if so desired and be able try both versions of damage model (new game required ofc).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 04, 2011, 06:15:21 AM
GetAssista:
Oh, please don't do the "optional" thing again.  It made the game impossible to balance.  If one version seems pretty realistic, and the other version has sticks doing more damage than swords and everybody has to carry an axe the size of a boat oar, then effectively there will have to be unique troops and economics for each... two complete mods, sharing graphics but little else.  Anything less, and one version or the other will be directly unplayable ... and somebody will be upset about that, too.  I would rather just forget it, and leave the stats generated by a sadistic random number generator, and just figure that I didn't need to ever play TLD, before dealing with all the nonsense that comes with an "optional" version.  That's just creating a nightmare of logistics.


----------------
Madvader:
Would you stop panicking, and just let me work?  When you see the finished product, you will understand where this is headed.  Until then, trying to explain in abstract terms what took a lot of refinement to finally build on other mods is a futile exercise.

I mean, dude ... you're trying to obstruct something that you've apparently never seen in action (as best I can gather from what you're saying).   Wait and see what all the hype was about, before you decide that many thousands of gamers playing Native are doing so out of a conscious decision to favor that damage model.  I think you will find that the model can be and will be substantially improved.

If, after seeing the finished project, you still want to go back to the old stats ... we'll find some way to do that.  Or just generate some random stats for everything ... that would have the same basic effect.  But I bet you will see the improvement, as the vast majority in previous conversions have.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MadVader on November 04, 2011, 06:25:25 AM
Hm, well, who said communication is easy.
And yes, any RCM should be optional and not force-fed to the public. That's not debatable. And I'm out of this debate...
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 04, 2011, 07:23:51 AM
Once, there was a poll as to which people would prefer for TLD--RCM or Native stats? What was the result of that poll?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 04, 2011, 08:28:55 AM
Once, there was a poll as to which people would prefer for TLD--RCM or Native stats? What was the result of that poll?

Even in spite of the massive balance issues and obviously tacked-on nature of the optional RCM for TLD .808, the poll results were a massive landslide in favor of the RCM version.  I don't remember the exact numbers or the final tally (as I don't remember the poll ever being closed, officially), but the ratio was at least 4 to 1 in favor of the RCM stats.  The commentary that was attached to that thread also clearly indicated that, had the game been properly balanced around the new stats, the preference ratio would have been more than 10 to 1 (i.e. almost everyone that commented and voted for the original stats cited the troop, equipment, and economic balance issues - which did, in fact, make the RCM-version game unplayable long-term, but which were not an artifact of those stats).


MadVader:

So I hardly feel like this would constitute a "force-feed" of anything in particular.  If the poll meant anything, it said that using the Native-based specifications (any particular set of them, considering how drastically they randomly mutate between M&B versions) was offensive to the majority, when given a choice. 

I mean, you have to get the data somewhere, and I promise that no particular expertise was expended in the creation of the item stats for Native... so numbers based on anything at all are generally preferable to numbers selected totally at random and then mutated in equally random ways to create "balance".  And the effect of weapons on living things and/or armor materials is one thing that can be measured ... so I figure we fix that, and then set the skill levels and such (which are totally arbitrary numbers) to make that balance.  At least that workflow prevents us from chasing our tails trying to balance several complex variables at once - it nails one value down to a concrete external standard (although some variability and tweaking still apply), and then the others can be set accordingly to produce the desired result. 

But however you get the numbers, you either have to "force-feed" some set of numbers on all players, or create an infinite number of optional variations.  (The random mutations that come with each new version of Native are not quite infinite, they only seem that way.)  It's not a "normal" vs. "RCM stats" question - it's picking one set of numbers out of an infinite set of possibilities... and that's not a debate, it's just math.  If you have a case for a particular set of numbers being "good" or at least "better" than whatever, we would all love to hear your reasoning behind this decision.  However, if anybody decides to go for the "infinite number of optional variations" approach, then they can count me out.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 04, 2011, 08:51:04 AM
Ron: I'm familiar with your work, if the old RCM is your project.  My statements were made with that in mind.

Part of the problem with M&B is just the raw "physics" of it. I've watched my character take wounds from arrows that were 'stuck' in the air just above his shoulder, or pinned in the top of his shield. Raise your shield skill, and every NPC on the field somehow defends better. Flesh wounds don't seem to happen. And of course, all of this is without getting into the realism of fighting techniques: you seem quite familiar with such things, so I'm sure you realize how much more effective something as simple as a longsword/bastard sword is than the game presents: it's painted as a weapon somehow slower and only moderately more damaging than one-handed weapons that have similar dimensions. Different armours had advantages or disadvantages in dealing with various types of damage, but with M&B you get different damage types but one broad-spectrum armour rating.

I agree that re-balancing needs to be done with the weapons as they are. And yes, it's going to be a brutal job given how the weapon lengths don't match up in many cases (while testing TLD yesterday my character was somehow ganked by an axe that visually whiffed the air in front of him, while his sword tip passed through the opponent without causing damage). But my point is that realism is a precarious thing where a very basic engine like M&B's is concerned.

I also haven't run into some of the same problems -- like a head being harder than a steel helmet. Headshots tend to end my character while not wearing a helmet, but put one on and there's a survival chance.

None of this is to disparage your efforts: I'm just explaining the root of my perception. A different philosophy, if you will. :)

Long-winded musing aside, I'd like to offer a constructive suggestion where it comes to certain magic items: something like dragon scale armour (no idea whether or not it's in the game) might be better represented by not much more protection, but less weight. Protects like steel, but weighs significantly less. Mobility + protection for the win! (Unlike Ranger leathers, which are the opposite) ;)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Triglav on November 04, 2011, 10:05:31 AM
Well, I for one got so hooked on Onin-no-Ran's RCM, that I could hardly go back to native stats once I got used to it. Native afterwards just seemed so, err... yea, cheap, to shoot someone in the head 5 times and still they came at you. In pure gameplay terms, I enjoyed playing with RCM much more. It was more dynamic, more fun (aiming for the weak spots) and it made more sense.

However TLD has it's specifics, since it's fantasy. Nothing unusual for a boromiroid human to get riddles with orc arrows and still slay a few enemies. Illogical, unanatomical, but part of the LOTR experience. Or an uruk being run through with a sword and still shouting curses. Or a troll arrowed like a pincusion... All such must still be taken into consideration.

But, as the author of the look of many main factions' armours, I ask you, Ron, to pay attention to the meshes visual. For instance, we've given orcs of same tier several armours, so they look less uniformed, but if you'll make a great diff in value where some orc armour for same tier shows naked belly, other has a bit of metal tied accross it, that could unbalance that whole tier's troops. Study BRF's carefully before you attribute armour and weapon stats, they should reflect visual level/quality AS WELL as tier functionality. Most troop trees were actually equipped with looks in mind, some for achieved uniformity and class distinction (Gondor and Gondor feudals, for instance), others for the exact opposite (orcs, uruks, Rhun...), so re-equipping the troop tree to fit the RCM quite out of the question...

And thank you for the effort!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: TheMageLord on November 04, 2011, 10:29:16 AM
Is there any way to get the autocalc battles to take equipment into consideration? I've never really looked into that, but this mod is on a huge scale where the player won't be everywhere at once - so it really needs good autocalc results. Right now if a player fights in a battle, elves and dwarves absolutely massacre any goblin force - even twice their number. If you let the battle work itself out automatically, the elves and dwarves get massacred.

Unless you can get the autocalc to take equipment (or at least a pseudo equipment strength number tied to troops themselves) into consideration, any balancing done in the direction of the different tiers of troops (elves>dwarves>men>uruks>orcs or whatever it's balanced to) is just going to throw off the campaign balance. It's really a game breaker if the player can walk in naked and alone and change the course of a battle just because the troops fight so much better in actual combat than calculated battles.

In one case I went and helped defend a Rohan city against an orc attack. It was still early in the game and I had crappy gear and only killed few dozen orcs out of 600, but me just being present allowed the 150 defenders to win. Loading the game and waiting a few days made the orcs win with minimal losses.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 04, 2011, 10:34:26 AM
Quote
However TLD has it's specifics, since it's fantasy. Nothing unusual for a boromiroid human to get riddles with orc arrows and still slay a few enemies. Illogical, unanatomical, but part of the LOTR experience. Or an uruk being run through with a sword and still shouting curses. Or a troll arrowed like a pincusion... All such must still be taken into consideration.
Actually, aren't those things entirely possible? Certainly not normal, of course.

A cop was shot several times. He got angry, then, and chased the shooter for several yards, before apprehending him. The cop was fine.
Providing the sword didn't specifically cut into the wrong place, I think you would tend to shout curses, if you didn't go into shock (orcs are tough, after all).
Trolls being pin-cushioned sounds entirely reasonable, depending on how big the troll is meant to be. Also, it depends on the depth of the arrows... are they piercing most of the way through, so you can see the arrowheads poking out the other side? Or are they only reaching a centimeter into the gigantic troll's thick flesh?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MadVader on November 04, 2011, 10:57:59 AM
Is there any way to get the autocalc battles to take equipment into consideration? I've never really looked into that, but this mod is on a huge scale where the player won't be everywhere at once - so it really needs good autocalc results. Right now if a player fights in a battle, elves and dwarves absolutely massacre any goblin force - even twice their number. If you let the battle work itself out automatically, the elves and dwarves get massacred.

Unless you can get the autocalc to take equipment (or at least a pseudo equipment strength number tied to troops themselves) into consideration, any balancing done in the direction of the different tiers of troops (elves>dwarves>men>uruks>orcs or whatever it's balanced to) is just going to throw off the campaign balance. It's really a game breaker if the player can walk in naked and alone and change the course of a battle just because the troops fight so much better in actual combat than calculated battles.

In one case I went and helped defend a Rohan city against an orc attack. It was still early in the game and I had crappy gear and only killed few dozen orcs out of 600, but me just being present allowed the 150 defenders to win. Loading the game and waiting a few days made the orcs win with minimal losses.
No, more "realistic" autocalc would very likely disrupt the present balance. After doing one for another mod, I don't think it's worth the trouble. There are always battles that won't compute and (few) people who'll complain about it.
I don't agree that a different battle outcome if the player is present is a game breaker.

What is important for us as designers is to control the autocalc to make certain factions stronger in AI battles, and that's all there is to it.
You as a player have a choice to use it or not. The magical word being choice.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 04, 2011, 10:58:57 AM
A cop was shot several times. He got angry, then, and chased the shooter for several yards, before apprehending him. The cop was fine.
Providing the sword didn't specifically cut into the wrong place, I think you would tend to shout curses, if you didn't go into shock (orcs are tough, after all).
Trolls being pin-cushioned sounds entirely reasonable, depending on how big the troll is meant to be. Also, it depends on the depth of the arrows... are they piercing most of the way through, so you can see the arrowheads poking out the other side? Or are they only reaching a centimeter into the gigantic troll's thick flesh?

You're absolutely correct. In fact, an FBI report on the lethality of gunshot wounds several years back confirms that even modern firearms are exaggerated in their lethality. Which is not to say they're anything but dangerous as Hell... but Hollywood and bad amateur historians have left us with pretty distorted notions of death rates, the effects of wounds, etc.

Then there's the notion of how much punishment a body can take. Any hunter will tell you that moose, bears, and other large creatures have a frightening ability to shrug off what we'd consider to be horrific damage. Some larger, fiercer bears have been known to take several rounds from high-powered rifles before going down. A black troll, who has armoured skin for all intents and purposes, shouldn't have much of a problem shrugging off most arrows.

As for humans: a biker in California a few years back took 22 (!!!) bullets from the cops before going down.  Going more archaic: Edward Teach, the infamous Blackbeard, suffered about a half dozen shots and 20 or so sword and knife wounds when they took him down. No armour, just thick cloth.

The human body's a funny thing. Sometimes the littlest things can kill us in a blink. Sometimes we can endure massive trauma and come back from it. It can't even be broken down into individuals: different situations seem to trigger different responses in individuals.

It's why I say realism's a tricky thing, particularly when broken down into basic numbers. "Realism" is highly subjective thing to begin with, it's not necessarily copacetic with fun game play, and the physics of it can't really be modelled anyway.  It's better to simply have an internally consistent logic within a game.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 04, 2011, 11:32:07 AM
No, more "realistic" autocalc would very likely disrupt the present balance. After doing one for another mod, I don't think it's worth the trouble. There are always battles that won't compute and (few) people who'll complain about it.
I don't agree that a different battle outcome if the player is present is a game breaker.

What is important for us as designers is to control the autocalc to make certain factions stronger in AI battles, and that's all there is to it.
You as a player have a choice to use it or not. The magical word being choice.
That would be breaking one of the rules of game-design :-/.

An analysis of game design broke it up like this: You have Choices, and you have Problems.

Problems are simple: Which piece of equipment is the best, mathematically? How do I kill all the enemies in this room to get through the door?
Problems can have multiple answers. Killing the guys is possible with a machine gun or a shotgun, but if it is easier to do with the shot-gun, that is the prime solution to the problem.

Choice, in terms of video-game-design, means having more than one option, without any best option. Morality systems in games often fail, in that few people want to be the maniac who kills every kitten they see... especially not when they'd get the same reward for petting every kitten they see.

MMORPGs often give the illusion of choice with their skill-trees and the like. However, skill trees are a Problem, not a Choice. There is a best solution, depending on if you want to do PvE or PvP. Same with equipment in most games.

So, what this boils down to... is it isn't a "Choice", giving the players something abusable. It is the best option, the prime solution to the Problem of winning the game, to run as fast as you can between battles, pop in so that your allies fight ten-times better, and gets tons of renown, prisoners and so-forth. While the solution for the evil side would be to settle all battles with a high Tactics skill, and Auto-Calculate.

That is the matter. Forcing players to handicap themselves is not good design.*


You're absolutely correct. In fact, an FBI report on the lethality of gunshot wounds several years back confirms that even modern firearms are exaggerated in their lethality. Which is not to say they're anything but dangerous as Hell... but Hollywood and bad amateur historians have left us with pretty distorted notions of death rates, the effects of wounds, etc.

Then there's the notion of how much punishment a body can take. Any hunter will tell you that moose, bears, and other large creatures have a frightening ability to shrug off what we'd consider to be horrific damage. Some larger, fiercer bears have been known to take several rounds from high-powered rifles before going down. A black troll, who has armoured skin for all intents and purposes, shouldn't have much of a problem shrugging off most arrows.

As for humans: a biker in California a few years back took 22 (!!!) bullets from the cops before going down.  Going more archaic: Edward Teach, the infamous Blackbeard, suffered about a half dozen shots and 20 or so sword and knife wounds when they took him down. No armour, just thick cloth.

The human body's a funny thing. Sometimes the littlest things can kill us in a blink. Sometimes we can endure massive trauma and come back from it. It can't even be broken down into individuals: different situations seem to trigger different responses in individuals.

It's why I say realism's a tricky thing, particularly when broken down into basic numbers. "Realism" is highly subjective thing to begin with, it's not necessarily copacetic with fun game play, and the physics of it can't really be modelled anyway.  It's better to simply have an internally consistent logic within a game.
Yes. Movies have given the impression: "If a bullet touches you, you will die, or at least collapse!". Ironically, some people do collapse after being shot, or after thinking they've been shot, because that is what movies taught them to do... Sadly for police, not all criminals are that dumb do that...

I forget the numbers, but apparently grizzly bears - when American settlers were exploring - could take a RIDICULOUS number of musket balls before dying. And musket balls are BIG!

Once read an article about duels. Some people have been pierced through the heart, then survived to ripe old ages. One guy was stabbed 19 times with a dagger, "from neck to navel", but he proceeded to, "bite the chin off of" his opponent.... and they both lived to a ripe old age.

Not sure where I heard it, it may've been from that FBI report on gun-statistics, but, "If it can happen, it will happen" in the context of a fight... There've been so many millions of encounters throughout history, you name it and it has probably happened.

That is true in a lot of cases. Still, in the RCM's case, I do think it makes the game more fun, and thought-provoking. Sadly, even with the RCM, Native is boring... Those sieges especially. It becomes a chore, when all I can do is chop downwards on enemy heads for about an hour--then do the same thing on a hundred more castles!!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Multiheaded on November 04, 2011, 11:39:22 AM
Just wanted to say that I fully support Ron, applaud his efforts and CAN'T WAIT for the new RCM!
Rock on, Ron!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MadVader on November 04, 2011, 11:47:04 AM
No, more "realistic" autocalc would very likely disrupt the present balance. After doing one for another mod, I don't think it's worth the trouble. There are always battles that won't compute and (few) people who'll complain about it.
I don't agree that a different battle outcome if the player is present is a game breaker.

What is important for us as designers is to control the autocalc to make certain factions stronger in AI battles, and that's all there is to it.
You as a player have a choice to use it or not. The magical word being choice.
That would be breaking one of the rules of game-design :-/.

An analysis of game design broke it up like this: You have Choices, and you have Problems.

Problems are simple: Which piece of equipment is the best, mathematically? How do I kill all the enemies in this room to get through the door?
Problems can have multiple answers. Killing the guys is possible with a machine gun or a shotgun, but if it is easier to do with the shot-gun, that is the prime solution to the problem.

Choice, in terms of video-game-design, means having more than one option, without any best option. Morality systems in games often fail, in that few people want to be the maniac who kills every kitten they see... especially not when they'd get the same reward for petting every kitten they see.

MMORPGs often give the illusion of choice with their skill-trees and the like. However, skill trees are a Problem, not a Choice. There is a best solution, depending on if you want to do PvE or PvP. Same with equipment in most games.

So, what this boils down to... is it isn't a "Choice", giving the players something abusable. It is the best option, the prime solution to the Problem of winning the game, to run as fast as you can between battles, pop in so that your allies fight ten-times better, and gets tons of renown, prisoners and so-forth. While the solution for the evil side would be to settle all battles with a high Tactics skill, and Auto-Calculate.

That is the matter. Forcing players to handicap themselves is not good design.*
Yes, but... the alternative is not pleasant. It requires complete rebalancing of the parties and the strategic events, and tons of scripting to calculate troop strength according to skills, attributes and equipment. And even then those calculations would only be marginally more realistic than the present, level-based ones. I've done that before, so I'm talking from experience (PoP's autocalc).

Debates are nice, but real work is something else. But if it's in your power to deliver a magical solution, complete with scripts and party templates rebalanced after hours of playtesting, please do so :).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: TheMageLord on November 04, 2011, 12:02:30 PM
Yes, but... the alternative is not pleasant. It requires complete rebalancing of the parties and the strategic events, and tons of scripting to calculate troop strength according to skills, attributes and equipment. And even then those calculations would only be marginally more realistic than the present, level-based ones. I've done that before, so I'm talking from experience (PoP's autocalc).

Debates are nice, but real work is something else. But if it's in your power to deliver a magical solution, complete with scripts and party templates rebalanced after hours of playtesting, please do so :).

You don't necessarily have to make it check skills and stats and equipment and everything. Even a strength boost based on the type of troop would suffice. After the in-battle equipment gets balanced where you want it, just take that same basic idea that drove the equipment balance (say you wanted one elf to equal two goblins or 1.5 uruks or whatever it is your goal is) then add in a modifier to the battle script based on that and adjust the party sizes based on that. The equipment balance is the hard part - after you have it balanced where you want it all you have to do is run a few test battles to make sure it's working right, then use those numbers to work the auto calc.

For example, if an elf party is supposed to be evenly matched with a goblin party in a world where elves are worth 2 goblins, just have 60 elves in a party and 120 goblins in a party. Then make the battle script count adjust the strengths accordingly so that it kills off an average of 1 elf for every 2 goblins.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MadVader on November 04, 2011, 12:14:19 PM
Yes, but... the alternative is not pleasant. It requires complete rebalancing of the parties and the strategic events, and tons of scripting to calculate troop strength according to skills, attributes and equipment. And even then those calculations would only be marginally more realistic than the present, level-based ones. I've done that before, so I'm talking from experience (PoP's autocalc).

Debates are nice, but real work is something else. But if it's in your power to deliver a magical solution, complete with scripts and party templates rebalanced after hours of playtesting, please do so :).

You don't necessarily have to make it check skills and stats and equipment and everything. Even a strength boost based on the type of troop would suffice. After the in-battle equipment gets balanced where you want it, just take that same basic idea that drove the equipment balance (say you wanted one elf to equal two goblins or 1.5 uruks or whatever it is your goal is) then add in a modifier to the battle script based on that and adjust the party sizes based on that. The equipment balance is the hard part - after you have it balanced where you want it all you have to do is run a few test battles to make sure it's working right, then use those numbers to work the auto calc.

For example, if an elf party is supposed to be evenly matched with a goblin party in a world where elves are worth 2 goblins, just have 60 elves in a party and 120 goblins in a party. Then make the battle script count adjust the strengths accordingly so that it kills off an average of 1 elf for every 2 goblins.
It's much more complex than that, and I'd have to write a long explanation how the autocalc scripts work, and how the engine works, which I don't have time to do.
It has been considered and deemed impractical. There is no mathematical model that would replicate the results of a battle, other than playing the battle itself. No, really, there is not. Pick up the module system and try it for yourself, or think about the many different scenarios for a while.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: TheMageLord on November 04, 2011, 02:08:49 PM
Yes, but... the alternative is not pleasant. It requires complete rebalancing of the parties and the strategic events, and tons of scripting to calculate troop strength according to skills, attributes and equipment. And even then those calculations would only be marginally more realistic than the present, level-based ones. I've done that before, so I'm talking from experience (PoP's autocalc).

Debates are nice, but real work is something else. But if it's in your power to deliver a magical solution, complete with scripts and party templates rebalanced after hours of playtesting, please do so :).

You don't necessarily have to make it check skills and stats and equipment and everything. Even a strength boost based on the type of troop would suffice. After the in-battle equipment gets balanced where you want it, just take that same basic idea that drove the equipment balance (say you wanted one elf to equal two goblins or 1.5 uruks or whatever it is your goal is) then add in a modifier to the battle script based on that and adjust the party sizes based on that. The equipment balance is the hard part - after you have it balanced where you want it all you have to do is run a few test battles to make sure it's working right, then use those numbers to work the auto calc.

For example, if an elf party is supposed to be evenly matched with a goblin party in a world where elves are worth 2 goblins, just have 60 elves in a party and 120 goblins in a party. Then make the battle script count adjust the strengths accordingly so that it kills off an average of 1 elf for every 2 goblins.
It's much more complex than that, and I'd have to write a long explanation how the autocalc scripts work, and how the engine works, which I don't have time to do.
It has been considered and deemed impractical. There is no mathematical model that would replicate the results of a battle, other than playing the battle itself. No, really, there is not. Pick up the module system and try it for yourself, or think about the many different scenarios for a while.

I know it's more complicated to make it perfect, but it doesn't have to exactly replicate the results of a battle, just be closer to it than straight up calculating based on levels and such.

Heres a simple example that would probably give good results: If, after running some test battles, you get the following values for approximate casualties during some fairly evenly matched battles (this assuming you have your equipment balance done enough that you can actually set up evenly matched battles by adjusting the numbers up or down on the two sides).

Elves of Lothlorien: 2.5
Dwarves of Erebor: 2
Men of Rohan: 1.5
Uruks of Isengard: 1.5
Orcs of Isengard: 1.2
Orcs of Moria: 1
Orcs of Gundabad: 0.8

In the script where it calculates party strength for the battle (and for various decisions, so it's pretty catch-all) just apply that modifier to the party based on the faction of the party (most parties keep their own faction troops in this mod, and you could add other checks to have non-faction troops rescued sent to their city or something). That way it assigns a higher value for the troops. Then where it calculates casualties, multiply the losses by the strength of the party they're fighting.

That should make it so that a party of 60 dwarves will be detected as equal to a party of 120 orcs of moria. In the actual battle, it should inflict twice the casualties on the orcs as the dwarves.

Granted it won't be perfect and it won't catch everything, but it'd be closer than it is currently.

If you wanted to be able to handle mixed faction parties (like the player) you could make a script that counts the amount of troops in each faction present, multiplies it by their modifier, adds them all together, and divides it by the total troops in that side of the battle. Casualty inflicting might get a bit wonky there sometimes if it randomly assigns the casualties all to either the low end troops or the high end troops, but on average it should work out.

Just to remind you that you are trying to argue with the guy who knows darn well how to code autocalc, had first hand experience, and abandoned the idea.
I for one, immediately see flaws in your "Heres a simple example". Main one being - factions are not uniform within, all troops are different. They are different on different terrain, in different compositions, on different battlesize/tactics. Throw in couple more factions, and you look at serious matrix of possiblities in party vs party encounter. Throw in 19 factions in TLD, and you are lost forever.
TBN, current level based calc captures more than your example already, cause level is naturally bigger for better troops, and we adjust it, taking into account both calc and training time.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: TheMageLord on November 04, 2011, 02:54:06 PM
I meant in addition to all the other calculations, I'm not saying gut the thing and just make it treat all troops from a faction the same.

An autocalc like I'm talking about wouldn't be practical in a mod where the factions are supposed to be balanced on a 1 to 1, but you guys are trying to balance the equipment where orcs are inherently weaker. Just making them higher level doesn't seem to be enough, since parties of lowly orcs are stomping parties of dwarves. This mod is a unique challenge due to the equipment differences the troops have, and I'm just saying something like this could help balance things in that direction and make up for the equipment differences.

Something more complex could have modifiers based on each and every troop tree (tested for by checking for the troop range that composes that tree). Every individual troop tree could have an equipment bonus based on how well equipped the line is, and it would add that number for every troop as it cycles through the list. Once it gets the total number it just divides by the total party count and you have an average equipment bonus for the whole party to apply it in the party strength and casualties parts of the script. This way the well equipped troops in a faction would be factored in without having to actually check exactly what the troop is wearing and make all sorts of complex calculations.

The hardest part would be coming up with viable numbers for each troop tree since there are like 50 of them, but a cursory examination of the equipment available to the lines should be able to get you starting numbers. The tests that will need to be done when working out the kinks on the RCM would probably be enough to give you what you need, assuming that someone actually intends on testing it and balancing the factions accordingly.

I wouldn't mind helping on something like this once you guys have the equipment balancing finalized. Not saying it would be a quick fix (nothing is a quick fix on a mod of this scale, it's obvious a vast amount of effort has went into it already), but it'd be worth it imo if the calculated battles got even a little bit closer to the actual fights.


Oh, and just to clarify: I'm not really talking about the player initiated auto battles when you're down. Improving that would be nice, but I'm mainly concerned with the npc vs npc parties. The current thing where you can just ride solo from battle to battle allowing your side to win by a landslide by your mere presence is what I'm talking about fixing. It may not be as much of an issue once proper equipment balancing is done, but I have a feeling it will be if your goals are to balanced based on tiers of equipment where some factions are inherently way better than others.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: ghanburighan on November 04, 2011, 02:57:06 PM
Just wanted to say that I fully support Ron, applaud his efforts and CAN'T WAIT for the new RCM!
Rock on, Ron!

And I second that
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MadVader on November 04, 2011, 03:26:59 PM
We appreciate the desire, but you really need a lot of knowledge to help and that's always hard to explain. We also don't have much time for academic debates.
But please continue reporting problems.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 05, 2011, 02:45:23 AM
Just wanted to say that I fully support Ron, applaud his efforts and CAN'T WAIT for the new RCM!
Rock on, Ron!
And I second that
Will third that.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Duuvian on November 05, 2011, 04:13:05 AM
Just wanted to say that I fully support Ron, applaud his efforts and CAN'T WAIT for the new RCM!
Rock on, Ron!
And I second that
Will third that.

Hi. I haven't been around much but I saw that TLD was advanced to the last version of basic M&B, yay! Great job I'm sure even though I haven't finished the download yet.

However, as someone who has previously enjoyed TLD to a much greater extent with RCM when compared to without it I would like to make the request that perhaps you design for RCM with the more native damage values being available for plugging in so to speak; sort of the opposite of last time. That way the issue of having both available is still solved, while RCM is able to be used to it's maximum effect without having two differently designed versions of the mod or one version resulting in unbalanced troop composition in armies for example.

The downside is that the native version combat model would possibly have to be re-done to match the RCM's troop composition. However that would only be if the native combat model proves unbalanced or otherwise worse than it already is which would be quite the assumption for me to make now as I haven't even finished downloading the sole existing combat model yet much less been able to compare the two combat models.

Anyways though I will vouch for Ron's work, as he strives for perfection from what I can tell. I've seen the results that he can deliver and they were impressive. I for one would like to see his RCM be the combat model the mod is designed for with a more native one to replace it for those who would prefer to have native values.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 05, 2011, 04:16:35 AM
Hmm... actually, plugging in Native stats over an RCM base might work quite well. RCM tends to be deadlier at lower levels, and more survivable at higher levels (generally). Native tends to be more even throughout. Therefore, Native stats ought to work just as well, but with a different difficulty curve.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 05, 2011, 07:13:24 AM
Which is pretty much the feel of Lord of the Rings. Along with lighter armour generally offering more protection than most people assume in real life, Tolkien's work focused on characters who traveled and adventured as such.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 05, 2011, 07:35:12 AM
Err, not sure which model you're supporting, in that post.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 05, 2011, 12:46:57 PM
My apologies -- I wasn't being clear enough.  I believe that, while consistency and some measure of realism is desirable in such a game, that going for the version of realism that was RCM would lose the feel of Tolkien's work.  I think a middle ground approach is likely the best, otherwise you'll see troops like the Rivendell elite scouts and the veteran Dunedain Rangers dropping like flies.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: ghanburighan on November 05, 2011, 01:45:48 PM
My apologies -- I wasn't being clear enough.  I believe that, while consistency and some measure of realism is desirable in such a game, that going for the version of realism that was RCM would lose the feel of Tolkien's work.  I think a middle ground approach is likely the best, otherwise you'll see troops like the Rivendell elite scouts and the veteran Dunedain Rangers dropping like flies.

Scouts and rangers should drop like flies in heavy meelee combat. They rely on not letting the enemy get close. For example, Aragorn likely traveled light in the Shire, but in real battles he of course wore good armour. He was not so stupid to show up in a ranger's gear at the battle of Helm's Deep. That would surely have gotten him killed.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 05, 2011, 03:05:38 PM
Scouts and rangers should drop like flies in heavy meelee combat. They rely on not letting the enemy get close. For example, Aragorn likely traveled light in the Shire, but in real battles he of course wore good armour. He was not so stupid to show up in a ranger's gear at the battle of Helm's Deep. That would surely have gotten him killed.

By that logic, none of them should have gotten through Moria. Or survived the orc ambush that later killed Boromir... who gave one Hell of an accounting of himself, even with a torso riddled with arrows. Gandalf certainly shouldn't have lived, riding around as he was in naught but robes.

And if the automatic temptation is to here point out that Gandalf was a strange being of remarkable supernatural powers, I'd say "exactly". It's fantasy. (And yes, the pedant in me is aware he was cloaked in mortal flesh, just as vulnerable as any man's)

It's heroic fiction on a grand, though still human, scale. "Realism" encompasses both the poor sod who takes an unfortunate headshot at the beginning of a battle and dies before even seeing the enemy, and the odd cases where heavily wounded people not only fight on, but make a solid accounting of themselves and manage to recover after.  In Tolkien's fictional world, probability leans heavily toward the latter.

You seem to be under the impression this is "real" medieval combat. I'm more of the opinion that a mod based so heavily on Tolkien's work should carry the flavour of said work. The Rangers of the North didn't drop like flies in combat. It'd suck if the units that are meant to mimic them did. Since there's no option to change the gear of the Rangers as the story progresses, and even advanced Ranger units have the exact same armour as the basic units, my preference is to err on the side of the source material.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 05, 2011, 06:00:15 PM
By that logic, none of them should have gotten through Moria. Or survived the orc ambush that later killed Boromir... who gave one Hell of an accounting of himself, even with a torso riddled with arrows. Gandalf certainly shouldn't have lived, riding around as he was in naught but robes.

And if the automatic temptation is to here point out that Gandalf was a strange being of remarkable supernatural powers, I'd say "exactly". It's fantasy. (And yes, the pedant in me is aware he was cloaked in mortal flesh, just as vulnerable as any man's)

It's heroic fiction on a grand, though still human, scale. "Realism" encompasses both the poor sod who takes an unfortunate headshot at the beginning of a battle and dies before even seeing the enemy, and the odd cases where heavily wounded people not only fight on, but make a solid accounting of themselves and manage to recover after.  In Tolkien's fictional world, probability leans heavily toward the latter.

You seem to be under the impression this is "real" medieval combat. I'm more of the opinion that a mod based so heavily on Tolkien's work should carry the flavour of said work. The Rangers of the North didn't drop like flies in combat. It'd suck if the units that are meant to mimic them did. Since there's no option to change the gear of the Rangers as the story progresses, and even advanced Ranger units have the exact same armour as the basic units, my preference is to err on the side of the source material.
...How so? Lord of the Rings, from what I remembered, was about very high level persons.

An uncrowned King of one of the greatest nations in Middle-Earth, who is the descendant of a mighty race, who has about SEVENTY years of experience and a young body.
An Elven Prince, with similar attributes to Aragorn (due to being an elf).
Same for Gimli (though not necessarily to the same extent).
Boromir is an impressive warrior, though not necessarily as impressive as the other two.
Then Gandalf, who is something similar to an angel, among the most powerful men who walk middle earth.
Largely, the hobbits had to sit back and try not to get killed, in large fights.

So, these guys against a bunch of rabble orcs... Hard to say how tough the orcs they fought tended to be. The battles in the book, from memory, didn't have a lot of detail--so it's hard to garner much from how they fought.
However, Tolkien was a soldier during WWI, and anime fighting was not popular in England around his time. Therefore, it's fairly safe to say he'd be thinking of more mundane, real sorts of things (after all, he picked an age with mail and no plate-armour, instead of an age of dazzlingly armoured knights).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: The Yogi on November 05, 2011, 06:43:40 PM
Whenever I play M&B without RCM, I miss it. Can't wait for RCM to return to Middle Earth!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 06, 2011, 06:26:11 AM
Guys:  General update....

Got about a fourth of the way through the list.  It's slow going ... I have to study and measure every visual model in the many .BRF files.  (By the way, weapon lengths will match the models when I'm done.  They were, for the most part, WAY off.)  Armors are tricky.

For the record, those stats in that first release were all over the place...  Armor was paper thin, bows were weak as heck, but the thrown weapons .... you could have gone hunting tanks with those javelins.  Their velocity and damage were both too high by twice ... a child could have knocked down an armored troll with one, at 50 paces.

Some of those sword models are gigantic.  Reach 122 on the one labeled "aragorn_sword" ... that's four and a half feet of blade.  A 27-inch katana (if it's not made of tinfoil) requires you have a pretty good arm on you (and is, in case anyone wondered, an absolutely terrifyingly lethal weapon) ... it would take half the militia just to carry that 55-inch sucker out to the battlefield.  Even the shorter blades are not short.  Now, I'll model the damage/speed/reach off of what is there, but for the record, I would like to see more of the more reasonably-sized weapons.  I know that Native stats universally favor "bigger" - but RCM stats do not... the speed penalties on using a weapon bigger than you will be substantial (although, in the case of well-balanced swords, still not as bad as big axes or heavy-head polearms).

---------------------

Adding something to the previous discussion:

The FBI study "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" 1989
www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

That's a favorite study of mine.  It builds a lot on the old NATO bullet wound study from the '50's, that basically said the breakdown on bullet wounds is:
First bullet hit - 30% chance of target being disabled (i.e. more or less unable to keep fighting)
Second bullet hit - 90% chance of "kill" (military casualty - disabled, removed from combat)
Third hit: 98% chance of kill.

Beyond that is a statistical fluke.  Caliber of weapon shifted these numbers about plus or minus 5%.  Better or worse shot placement seemed to slant it by 5 to 10%, but that too was unreliable (a center-body-mass shot could cut the spine, or miss it by a quarter inch and do nothing ... while kneecaps were more uniformly debilitating).

Baseline for the M&B RCM data assumes that arrowheads are a lot wider than bullets and a whole lot sharper, so those numbers go up a bit (assuming you can hit your target with an arrow ... the real advantage of firearms is in shot speed and relatively flat trajectory).  Also, strength of bow and type of arrow create statistically more variation than the plus or minus 5% that the firearm caliber did.

Adding armor into the formula makes it a totally different game, since arrows don't penetrate armor all that well.  That greatly reduces the effectiveness of weaker bows (unlike a certain movie, where all arrows went through metal armor like paper).  And explaining exactly how I worked that into the formula would require you having been there when I (and others) conducted any number of tests involving arrows and inappropriate target materials (like the door off of a '64 Chevy).  (Classic car lovers, don't mourn for the '64 Chevy - it was just the door, a part left over after putting two destroyed cars together to make one restored vehicle.)

Long story as short as possible:  This thing didn't get named the "realistic combat model" by pulling some numbers out of thin air.  And it's not the "Hollywood combat model" where everybody who gets hit falls down and armor is mostly decorative.  Or the "D&D combat model", where swords do 1d8 damage.  It's not even the "I like it this way and the game balances better here model" ... game balance, once the model is in place, can be tweaked best by adjusting skill levels of the troops involved (which are, in effect, completely arbitrary numbers anyway).

Anyway ... if I recall my Tolkien correctly, the crew escaped from Moria using some tactics.  They engaged the first patrol in an enclosed space, greatly limiting the orcs ability to gang up on them, and therefore taking maximum advantage of their better skills and equipment.  Then they ran for a bridge, saved primarily by their opponents having trouble hitting moving targets with arrows.  The only character who was significantly hit was Frodo, and he was saved by wearing the most amazing armor.  (Note for the record - low protection values on armor are a plague of M&B Native stats.)  None of those issues would conflict with the RCM stats ... and in fact, the team cutting down that first orc patrol like grass would actually be easier to replicate in the higher-damage melee environment of RCM numbers (since, unless both sides have very heavy armor, there is less trading damage - whoever lands the first really solid hit wins).

--------------------------------

Anyway, the project goes slowly, but I'm gaining on it.  We should have a test version within the week (if I can keep my head in the game and nothing else comes up).  First draft will be very rough - a lot of tweaks are expected.  I'll probably post the item file for everybody at the same time I send it to the team, so all the loyal RCM fans can help test it.  It will need a LOT of testing ... some of the numbers are pure guesswork.  (How much damage does a troll do?  And what in heck is a Warg? ... I mean, to model this right, I would need a full MRI scan on a Warg.)  So expect some trial-and-error, heavy on the error.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: maggot bread on November 06, 2011, 07:31:31 AM
I fully support Ron. That is all. :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 06, 2011, 07:46:08 AM
One possibility worth noting, Ron, is that some of the gigantic swords might be that big due to magic. By that I mean, they are made out of a metal as strong as steel but much lighter.
---
This is just a theory, with Aragorn's sword in particular (might be plain wrong).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Merlkir on November 06, 2011, 07:51:08 AM
One possibility worth noting, Ron, is that some of the gigantic swords might be that big due to magic. By that I mean, they are made out of a metal as strong as steel but much lighter.
---

This is correct. Also some of the weapons are made with huge strength of the user in mind. (all the various uruk cleavers and so on) If you make those slow, that wouldn't make sense.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 06, 2011, 07:55:45 AM
Melkir, could someone please give Ron a TXT with notes on the weapons and armour? Having to make guesses might confuse matters.


Haven't wielded any large weapons myself, so I couldn't say how much strength effects things (there's also leverage I'd have to consider).
Not sure how M&B handles weapon speed in regards to your STR, either :-/.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: maggot bread on November 06, 2011, 08:26:27 AM
Haven't wielded any large weapons myself, so I couldn't say how much strength effects things
Go to a construction site and try "wielding" a 16kg sledgehammer, you'll get the idea of how the ridiculously oversized fantasy weapons would feel in reality. :D
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Kohlrabi on November 06, 2011, 08:37:26 AM
Haven't wielded any large weapons myself, so I couldn't say how much strength effects things
Go to a construction site and try "wielding" a 16kg sledgehammer, you'll get the idea of how the ridiculously oversized fantasy weapons would feel in reality. :D

But how would it feel if you were an uruk-hai?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 06, 2011, 08:39:06 AM
Unless Uruk-Hai are miniaturized gorillas: "Too damn heavy!!" A troll could use one pretty easily, I'd guess (haven't seen TLD trolls yet, though).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 06, 2011, 09:07:11 AM
M&B does modify weapon speed by the speed (agility, dexterity, whatever it is called) of the user, and the skill involved.  That is, characters with high stats can use the weapon faster and more effectively.  Those numbers do have to be taken into account ... another common flaw in the stats, as they tend to be tested on really low-level characters and then set too high, so that when higher-stat characters (including players) get them, they easily exceed the sound barrier.  I'm going to try to avoid that.

Also, the speed numbers reflect animation speed, not weapon speed.  A knife at speed 100 looks like you're using it in slow motion, or under water, or some such.  Swing a polearm with six or seven feet of reach, at speed 100, and the point will be moving at bullet velocities.  A little math - calculating the circumference of the semi-circle that the weapon traverses - will show this very clearly.  This is another common mistake, and is one of the reasons that Native and most mods end up heavily favoring the most absurdly sized weapons.  It's a math mistake, effectively.

Realistically, however, even if the weapon is lighter than what steel would normally produce (either made of lighter materials, or the blade being made ultra-thin because of super-strong alloys or construction methods), you still have the greater motion required to manipulate the longer weapon.  You can throw a quick slash with a pocketknife just off of the motion in your wrist.  A baseball bat, even if it's lightweight aluminum, or a pool cue stick (a very light excuse for a weapon),  requires some time and space to bring it around, and more time and space to recover and be ready to strike again.  You run that on out to four or five feet of reach, and even if the thing only weighs six ounces (and/or the person using it has virtually infinite strength), it's going to be a LOT slower than a heavier but shorter blade.  The increased body motion required to manipulate it (without hitting the ground or dropping it) will take more time.

I was sort of assuming superior materials/construction making the blades lighter and stronger, in the cases of anything of Elven manufacture, and to a slightly lesser degree for the dwarves ... but there are a LOT of weapons that don't get those advantages and are still huge.

The orc cleavers, while heavy, were not quite so dang long in most cases - they actually struck me as being much more practical weapons than many of the knight's swords.  Maybe not as much reach from horseback, but a lot more maneuverable and much faster to use in close quarters.  A couple of the orc blades, I actually thought "hey, that's a pretty good looking weapon ... I should try to get one of those".

Anyway, I'll work it out, and we'll test it.  If something doesn't feel right, we'll reverse-engineer the problem from there (i.e. decide if the problem is the weapon being modeled as too heavy, or the troops being too weak, or the model itself being out of scale, or whatever).

Another issue for debate:  Why are so many bows marked "not usable from horseback"?  I mean, realistically, Japan still holds horse archery competitions where they use bows seven feet long with 200 pound draw weights.  Isn't having to put points into horse archery enough of a setback?

(And for the record, setting the elf bows to "pierce" damage is not going to work.  I already have them re-scaled so that elven bows do unreasonable damage ... just not THAT unreasonable ... but just so everybody knows.)

I also had to re-scale the power draw values.  M&B only uses the bow's required PD plus a max of 4 ... so if the bow is required PD 1, no power draw rating over 5 will change its performance.  To take advantage of the entire range of possible scores, the requirements have to go up to 6 in some cases (like, the very strongest bows - the elven ones).  That means that the troops will have to be checked, to make sure they have adequate power draw scores.  I don't have the troops Python file ... someone else will have to check that.  That is, unless somebody managed to remove that cap on power draw ... and if you did, I'll have to completely re-think the number system, so I hope not.

Other issues will be in the release notes - I hope everybody who helps with testing will read those notes.  I'm just posting these now to keep discussion headed in a constructive direction, and maybe solve a few of these issues a bit earlier.


-----------------------
And to finish off that last bunch of nonsense - my brother and I did some practice with 8 and 12 pound sledgehammers (the normal sizes you see used to break concrete and such), mostly just to build strength.  It's not as impossible as you might think to use one as a weapon, but it is kind of slow, and you do have to be very careful about your balance and body positioning to be effective... and you get winded fast.  (A full-length double-bit wood axe can be used with one hand as well, but with pretty much the same problems ... it's pretty clumsy, and you have to watch what you're doing to avoid hitting yourself in the knee.)  A quick guy with a switchblade would be more combat-effective, unless he was specifically attacking against heavy body armor and riot shields.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 06, 2011, 09:31:50 AM
Sounds like good news to me. I look forward to helping test.

And to finish off that last bunch of nonsense - my brother and I did some practice with 8 and 12 pound sledgehammers (the normal sizes you see used to break concrete and such), mostly just to build strength.  It's not as impossible as you might think to use one as a weapon, but it is kind of slow, and you do have to be very careful about your balance and body positioning to be effective... and you get winded fast.  (A full-length double-bit wood axe can be used with one hand as well, but with pretty much the same problems ... it's pretty clumsy, and you have to watch what you're doing to avoid hitting yourself in the knee.)  A quick guy with a switchblade would be more combat-effective, unless he was specifically attacking against heavy body armor and riot shields.
So a 16KG sledge hammer would be 35 pounds... about three or four times the weight. You'd have to be a gorilla to use that in a fight... or a troll.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: maggot bread on November 06, 2011, 09:41:02 AM
And to finish off that last bunch of nonsense - my brother and I did some practice with 8 and 12 pound sledgehammers (the normal sizes you see used to break concrete and such), mostly just to build strength.  It's not as impossible as you might think to use one as a weapon, but it is kind of slow
Yes, 16 kg is 35+ lbs and I had the pleasure to use it in the army. And yes, it's pretty much impossible to use as a weapon. You do like to kinda throw words like "nonsence" here and there, ha? :D
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: mikev359 on November 06, 2011, 10:03:56 AM
Ron,

You were asking about Wargs.  I am a K9 officer and I can tell you that dog bites don't do as much damage as most people think.  The dogs officers use are trained not to kill but to take down or immobalize a subject till the officers get there.  I'm sure Wargs would be trained to do the exact opposite.  Still K9 bites are not all that damaging, especially against subjects that have heavy clothing.  The teeth just don't penetrate any sort of protection.  The times when dogs due severly injure the suspects are when they catch them on unprotected areas of the body (back of legs when wearing shorts, or even neck [though that is extreamly rare]). 

I would suggest making Wargs cutting damage to reflect this.  Further they should do a lot more damage on a charge and very little on just standing there biting (if they stand around at all).  Dogs are, and have been in the past historically, used to take down individuals; there strength is not in attacking massed groups of people (though Wargs I realize are much bigger and stronger then our dogs).  I have no knowledge of coding or moding so I don't know the difficulty in what I suggest but that is my experience and observations on dogs.

Looking forward to the RCM Ron.
Mike
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Triglav on November 06, 2011, 11:23:07 AM
Ya, that thing Ron says about speed vs. weight & efficiency makes perfect sense. Weapons should behave realistically and have specific purpose.

Computer games tend to have a simplistic approach..your character starts with a shirt, a pen knife, as a noob, and he sucks. Then through the game the bulk of armour increases till he looks like a refrigerator, and wields a stopsign that does epic damage and he is a semigod. And this is getting more and more ridiculous with every new game title, LOTR games unfortunately not excluded. Nevermid that Merry severely wounded a nazgul with a dagger, and a Rohan maiden killed him with a regular blade a female arm could wield, or that Frodo himself was nearly mortally wounded by a mere dagger, etc. I can never rant enough about the ridiculousness of most computer games and their weapon design...

Historically size of weapons was adapted tot he role they had to fill. Roman legions could conquer the world with a short sword, crusades were fought in chainmail and with one handed swords, spears and lances, and late medieval heavy armour required heavy two handed weapons to pierce or bludgeon to death (and even there a dagger was always at hand, for the last act). Within their intended use, people always tried to optimise the weapon to deliver most damage with least effort and to do the job effectively. Why then a bleedin stop-sign sized weapon in games?

I have a nice combat katana at home and have trained the use of one for a while. It's a proper weapon, not an imitation display item. And although a full-weight two-handed swordn it is light and well balanced and easy to wield and yes, the tip of it does travel at near-bullet speeds in well trained hands. Deflects, parries and strikes within a second.

On the other hand, a friend of mine that works for Blizzard/World of Warcraft acquired one of their collectible items, a massive two-handed monster of a sword. Something like this, if not this very one: http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/additional/large/d497_latex_frostmourne_scale.jpg
And I could barely lift the damn thing. Even just from the ground. Much less trying to hold it for more than a few seconds in any sort of combat stance. And entirely impossible to swing it with any lethal efficiency. Someone attacks you with this, just avoid them moderately until they collapse of exhaustion or trip and fall over that weapon.

So yea. Anything that keeps things sane, is good with me!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: maggot bread on November 06, 2011, 12:05:00 PM
mikev359, can't really agree with you. Wargs are much bigger than dogs, like MUCH bigger. Huge jaws. Their bite power is obviously on another level. They probably can't eat metal armor, but tear off an unprotected/lightly protected arm or leg? Easily, imho.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: mikev359 on November 06, 2011, 01:31:31 PM
mikev359, can't really agree with you. Wargs are much bigger than dogs, like MUCH bigger. Huge jaws. Their bite power is obviously on another level. They probably can't eat metal armor, but tear off an unprotected/lightly protected arm or leg? Easily, imho.

My point exactly.  They tear off UNprotected/LIGHTLY protected arm or leg.  That to me sounds like exactly what cutting damage in this game is designed for.

Pierceing or blunt damage is designed to work around the advantages of armor.  I can see how a troll would do massive amount of blunt damage as they pummel you to death with thier fists or clubs (unless you argue they actually pierce you with thier claws).  But a bite, in my opinion, is cutting damage in this system.  In fact in the books if I recall tolls lift people up to bite out the UNprotected throat region of thier prey (that may be a different fantasy book).

I'm all in favor of a charging Warg doing a LOT of cutting damage however. 
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 06, 2011, 02:14:06 PM
I'm all in favor of a charging Warg doing a LOT of cutting damage however.

I'd suggest about as much as a warhorse does -- an animal of significantly less mass, but with sharp pointy bits. The AI that runs them also makes them a serious pain in the ass to try and take down... so that has to be factored in, too.


...How so? Lord of the Rings, from what I remembered, was about very high level persons.

It makes no sense to me to talk about striving for realism on one hand, and then chalk things up to the unrealism of game mechanics on the other. "High Level" doesn't mean a thing if we're talking reality. How tough and/or strong a person is doesn't make much difference when holes are poked in the wrong places. And if we're going back to the way M&B works, then levels are hampered by the notion -- once again -- of the game's limitations. The AI changes that dynamic pretty radically.

And yes, Aragorn was a remarkable case: 90-ish years old, and barely looking middle-aged. As Gandalf described him, "the last of the masterful men", adept at everything he tried. Gimli was meant to be a stalwart dwarf warrior -- though that was pretty much a general thing with every dwarf named in the books... and Legolas, through virtue of being an elf, was Bloody Amazing (tm). He could jog across tree branches as narrow as a thumb, or run across shoulder-deep snow without so much as leaving a footprint... while the rest of the crew had to slog through. Boromir? He was a figure of legend. Looked every inch the prince and the hero, a contrast to Aragorn, and was built like a brick house: Tolkien mentioned Boromir's amazing physical prowess a few times, and how thick his arms were, etc.

And what difference does any of that make? Chances are the PCs are headed in that direction themselves. Certainly the Lords in the game qualify, given their name status in the books. And again, you've got the Rangers of the North in the game -- and as badass as they're supposed to be, they already fall apart like tissue paper, without the re-balancing.  (Though, again, I fail to see the virtue of citing the fantastic and unrealistic nature of the main movers in trying to justify using 'realism' to recreate the feel of it)

It can be claimed that the Moria orcs only failed to kill the Fellowship due to extenuating circumstances of situation, moving targets, or what have you... but there's no way it'd work out like that in the game. The options and flexibility of real tactical thinking simply aren't present in an environment so basic. You can't block doors, crouch behind stone outcroppings, or even climb ladders.  Tweaking troop trees is only part of the equation.

Quote
So, these guys against a bunch of rabble orcs... Hard to say how tough the orcs they fought tended to be. The battles in the book, from memory, didn't have a lot of detail--so it's hard to garner much from how they fought.

Moria orcs were supposed to be pretty damned scary.  I can't remember whether it was Olog or Uruk that took down Boromir... but they were pretty badass, too.

Quote
However, Tolkien was a soldier during WWI, and anime fighting was not popular in England around his time. Therefore, it's fairly safe to say he'd be thinking of more mundane, real sorts of things (after all, he picked an age with mail and no plate-armour, instead of an age of dazzlingly armoured knights).

How did anime come into this equation at all?  ???  Though I agree with the general sentiment: his work was certainly more low-key and realistic than most modern fantasy. Same with Howard's. It's why I still prefer that end of the spectrum when it comes to the genre. None of what you're saying addresses the point of the game, however: not to simulate reality, but to simulate the pseudo-reality of Tolkien's fictional world.

To that end, changes need to be made. The equipment stats, as they are, are a bloody mess. Ron's working on a different model for those. To that end, either: 1) the equipment must be fixed to help recreate that feel; 2) the troops must be tweaked to recreate that feel, or; 3) both equipment and troops must be tweaked to recreate the feel of the setting.

Simply changing troop stats won't have the proper effect. The AI won't take advantage of it, and troop types who are supposed to be Hell on wheels (even if lightly armoured), will simply fall apart. The choice must be made to either change how they're kitted out (whether or not they were armoured more heavily in the source material), or adjust the values of the equipment.

Where does your preference lay in that?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Oyclo on November 06, 2011, 04:16:28 PM
I'm 100% for these changes just so no one thinks I'm arguing against them.

I'm curious though on how this is going to work between good/evil, especially the orcs.

For example, a Galadhrim Royal Marksmen has 500 in all weapon skills, 30 str, 30, agil, 5 in powerstrike, 8 in PD, 75 hitpoints and I'm going to assume the best armor available.

Now the mordor way is to put 10+ orcs vrs anyone like that to even things out. 

How is the armor vrs weapon effectiveness play out with this with the changes?  I can envision a situation where the highest level troops become unkillable tanks, being unlike a 'real' fight you can't simply tackle someone and stick a dagger in the holes.

I would guess that orc armor could be lessor but orc weapons should be about the same damage.  This is exacerbated by the M&B mechanics, in that unlike LoTR, we don't have 10000 orcs per 1000 men or so, (nor do we have as many 'exotic' units like troll men, trolls, Nazgul fear and the like).

I suppose what I'm getting at is in the end the orcs may have to be a tad 'better' than the books in order to function well with M&B.  Right now the only thing that makes orcs passable are the warg riders.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 06, 2011, 06:08:09 PM
I'm 100% for these changes just so no one thinks I'm arguing against them.

That's something I should have made clearer myself.  I think the task Ron's undertaken is an important one, and it's quite generous of him to offer his time to do so.  I also think a measure of realism is a very welcome thing. However, I believe that it's necessary to fudge the numbers somewhat to both keep things more 'realistic' in the big picture, and to preserve the feel of the stories.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 06, 2011, 07:58:37 PM
And yeah, a 12 pound sledgehammer can be used as a weapon, even if extremely slow ... although its only practical use would be against a shield wall, to break a few shields.  Heavier than that is useless as a weapon, and extremely questionable as a tool.  Come to think of it, however, an 18 pound sledgehammer was the heaviest I have ever seen (and it looked like the engine block of a car stuck on the end of a handle).  I don't think a 35 pound hammer can even be used as a tool (doorstop, maybe?) ... are you sure about that weight?

My use of the word "nonsense" was related to the fact that the line of discussion had little practical value and added little to the mod - it was just prattle.  While I'm not totally opposed to prattle, well, it's not helping much.....

--------------------------------
mikev359:
I came from Oklahoma, and we used dogs for a lot of stuff, from home security to herding livestock.  Now I'm in China, where the People's Armed Police love their kill-dogs ... and unlike in the States or Europe, they don't train theirs to take down a target.  Those half-wild critters fight like coyotes - they'll slash at your legs and wait for you to bleed out.  So I've seen the full range of police and trained combat dogs ... here and there.  And I fully agree with what you're saying, and can confirm much of it with specific examples.

I've also had the displeasure to be on the pointy end of a few canines.  The worst was when I was about 7 years old, and the dog out-weighed me considerably (like twice, at least).  He chewed me up, but I also managed to put some serious hurt to him ... as long as I could keep one elbow down his throat, he couldn't really get his teeth on anything vital, and that freed up my feet to kick in some ribs.  So most domestic dogs, while vicious on the attack, don't really have the knock-down or the damage resistance that a lot of people think.  They rely on speed and aggression to stun, and pain to subdue, rather than actual killing power (like, say, big cats - who can kill so quickly it's unbelievable).

The problem for calculating the Wargs for TLD, however, is one of scale.  The size ratio is more like a dog attacking a rabbit, where he can just pick it up and shake it to death.  Even without teeth, something that size can run you down and do considerable damage - if he manages to bite and hang on in passing, it would surely rip off whatever part it managed to hold.  This screws up the whole calculation of using dog vs. human and then multiplying.  Adding armor is more like a dog vs. tortoise calculation ... the dog tends to carry the turtle around for a while and then bury it.  (At least that's what our old beagle always used to do with them, last time I was back in the States.)  This really screws up the physics, particularly in the department of trying to visualize what kind of forces are at work.

-----------------------

I'm thinking the balance issues are going to be one of numbers.  No matter how good you are, being outnumbered is a serious setback.  Since a big part of the story in the books was that the evil side had vast hordes of "mooks"... er, "orcs", it would seem that this would be the critical factor in balance ... getting enough orcs to overcome the men and elves having advantages in both equipment and training.  Also, more of the tougher orcs mixed into the hordes would make some difference.

Beyond that, we'll just have to test it for feel.

And "high-level" does translate somewhat into reality.  Experience is a huge factor in combat, much more critical than strength or even equipment.  It determines the difference between panic and being able to do something effective.  Not in the D&D sense of having a gazillion hit-points, but very much in the world that veteran troops are uniformly much more dangerous to fight than green recruits.

One thing many have noted, however, in RCM mods is the lucky shot factor.  If both armor and damage values are too low, a lucky shot can be somewhat absorbed with extra hit points.  If values are more realistic, the armor is more likely to work most of the time, but the one that by some fluke does go through - it could be devastating.  This means the side that can put more arrows into the air, or more spears on the field, gets some bonus in the bizarre fluke department.  You don't see that one coming, just looking at the statistics ... or in real life, for that matter (historically, how many kings have been killed or disabled by stray arrows accidentally hitting the softest part of their armor?)... but it always shows up when you least expect it.

------------------------

Oh well, I have to quit typing here and run some errands, teach some classes, and hopefully have a few hours this evening to get back to work on TLD ... or else this is going to take a VERY long time.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 06, 2011, 08:32:00 PM
I'm thinking the balance issues are going to be one of numbers.  No matter how good you are, being outnumbered is a serious setback.  Since a big part of the story in the books was that the evil side had vast hordes of "mooks"... er, "orcs", it would seem that this would be the critical factor in balance ... getting enough orcs to overcome the men and elves having advantages in both equipment and training.  Also, more of the tougher orcs mixed into the hordes would make some difference.

From the play I've had in the mod so far, that all seems to depend on where you are. The Uruk that come swarming out of Mordor put a serious hurt on the Rohirrim, and tend to chew up any force that engages with them.  Even if they lose, they repopulate swiftly, and do some serious damage to the numbers of the good guys they face off against.

Quote
Beyond that, we'll just have to test it for feel.

Seems the most practical path. :)

Quote
And "high-level" does translate somewhat into reality.  Experience is a huge factor in combat, much more critical than strength or even equipment.  It determines the difference between panic and being able to do something effective.  Not in the D&D sense of having a gazillion hit-points, but very much in the world that veteran troops are uniformly much more dangerous to fight than green recruits.

I'm familiar with the advantage training gives.  I'm a personal trainer who received hand to hand training when much younger, and spent years working as a bouncer. That's as much as I'll say about that, as I find it distasteful to chirp about such things on internet forums -- where the number of people who bench press 300 pounds and have black belts in the martial arts trend of the day are rather prolific in number.  The long and short of it is that I'm intimately aware of the reality of fighting.

But -- once again -- the game's AI just isn't that bright. Adding levels and skills to NPCs is very much like that D&D archetype you seem to disparage. All it does is make the AI swing a little faster, hit a little harder, and take a little more time to fall down.  Characters like Rangers or elven bowmen were lightly armoured but dangerous as Hell because of the advantage you describe: experienced, cool-headed, and highly skilled. In the mod, Rangers already get torn up pretty easily despite having formidable skills.

The simplest solution may simply be in swapping out some equipment in certain units. If the game is going to end up going in the direction of becoming even more lethal for lightly-armoured characters (thus mimicking that typical progression noted before, where PCs start out with cruddy equipment and crap skills, slowly growing into heavily armoured killing machines), then it might be best to ensure that units that are supposed to be elite have sufficient armour and weapons to ensure that they present a proportionate amount of danger on the field.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 06, 2011, 09:55:39 PM
For the record, and comedy relief as it were ... I don't bench press 300 pounds.  I try to stay away from weight rooms, as the sound and smell of sweaty guys lifting heavy things is rather distasteful.  The only black belt I have is the leather one that holds up my slacks.

I have, however (comedy relief ends here), had more than a couple of people try to kill me.  And I don't mean "start a fight" ... I mean attempted homicide, generally in the pursuit of armed robbery, and generally conducted by individuals who were professionals at murder and robbery.  And some of those people did not survive the attempt.  So I too find the large number of lunatics chirping about how tough they are to be very offensive.  Actual combat (not "fighting" for social reasons, but deadly force combat) is awful and traumatic, and those who have gone through it generally don't want to do it again.  To those who have been there, saying you've survived such an encounter is not boasting - it's admitting that you live with inner pain.

But that said, and for the sake of anybody who has not heard me say this before - I really think that entertainment can be educational, or it can be misinformation.  If more people would put just a little effort into adding some realism to the entertainment, it would reduce the overall fatality rate from punks and would-be martial artists getting into unsurvivable fights.  It might reduce the fatality rate among surprised cops, whose last words before getting their heads cut off were "but I SHOT you!"  It would certainly avoid a lot of complicated court cases that result from people not understanding the phrase "deadly force".  And I can't do anything about all the entertainment, but I can take a little bite out of the problem right here.

If the "Realistic Combat Model" for M&B mods stops just one kid from getting killed because "it's just a little knife", all the flashbacks I go through from trying to work through this will be worth it.

But everybody cut me some slack, on that note ... it is psychologically hard to spend hours at a time working out exactly what certain things would do to a human body.  And as I calculate the physics, I can see the blood ... it's blood I've seen too many times.  ("One in a lifetime" would be way too many times for that.)  I can only take so much, before I just have to take a break.  And this doesn't always put me in a very good mood, as you might imagine.

But we'll work it out.  I'll do the model, the other guys who are better at programming will work out the balance details.  It's always worked out before, on numerous other mods, and it will work here.  Just an issue of time.  But let's take it one step at a time, instead of getting the cart quite so far ahead of the horse.  (Or the Warg, or several slaves, or whatever you use to pull your carts.)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: pagan on November 06, 2011, 10:40:56 PM
Heres the thing Northcott. "The Simplest Solution" is NOT, in my experience with this team, the way things are done here. They have an idea, and aim for it until all options are exhausted, only then do they scale back, but only 1 step back, not revert to the first cheap option. At least not in my experience. And from what i know about Ron over the years is he doesn't go for the easiest option either.

If the devs went with the simplest solution this mod would have been released 2 years ago, and would be no more then  textured men for orcs, as would dwarves elves, no troll or ents, stuff building helms deep and minas tirith, thats to damn hard. and yadda yadda. But no, the apparent impossible was achieved, a half dozen times with things like skeleton adaption, windy flora and flags so on and such.

Note i am not commenting on the use of an RCM, this, as i understand it was intended all along. However, Ron will have many different factors to work out with TLD that many other mods don't really have as an issue. If someone can do it, it is most probably Ron, but as with anything TLD, it wont be as easy as swapping out some armours. They are where they are for a reason. From what i understand much of his work is numbers (just an assumption though) grounded in reality, made to work within the confines of a game.

So if you cant have leather ranger armour being like plate, and you can't have rangers wearing plate, (or anything else other then what they are said to have worn, remember we are not making this stuff up, it is someone elses world, not ours.) then we have to come up with a third option to account for the pure skill these men have.

So just let him do what he does, when he has a prototype we will be somewhere, but suggesting do this or do that 5minutes into his quest is redundent, not to mention wasting his time having to justify things he probably hasn't even got to yet.

Not having a go at you, just sayng wait, as Ron himself has said several times. Patience is a virtue. You waiting this long for the mod, it should be easier to wait now with something to play in the meantime.

Cheers
Pagan
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: WindusAndar on November 07, 2011, 12:47:19 AM
Umm, (comes into the thread shyly), I am not sure how useful my words are going to be, but I remember seeing a documentary about Komodo Dragons on National Geographic. They measured the bite pressure of the Dragon in psi. I looked at some pictures of wargs and they look like they are mutated Hyenas or are their distant ancestors.

So, I went ahead and looked at the psi of a hyena's bite. It is 800 lb per square inch and the google search result says it can crush bone.

Ron, is it possible for you to calculate the damage, using the psi of a hyena's bite force, and doubling/tripling it for a Warg? The longer/sharper teeth should make it easier to go through leather armour and we could also consider disease/poison damage. With reference to the Komodo Dragon, Nat Geo did show that, because they don't purchase toothbrushes and toothpaste, the remnant food in their teeth plus bacterial decomposition/infection gives them poisoned teeth, essentially. So, wouldn't the warg (bigger, eats more, and has no hygiene) have to deliver some extra poison/disease damage as well?

These are more questions than suggestions really. Just wondering, if you are thinking along these lines too.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Triglav on November 07, 2011, 03:04:17 AM
The pictures you saw were of movie wargs. Those were made to look like hyenas.
The book wargs are quite clearly described as very large and fierce wolves and ours do depict that.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: WindusAndar on November 07, 2011, 03:12:12 AM
@Triglav: I stand corrected. The pics I saw looked like concept art and hence, I assumed they were not from the movies. I should have cross-checked.

So, that would mean a variable 600 psi to 1500 psi, the exact amount being debatable according to Google search. This returns me to my previous question, albeit without the poison part. Is it possible, Ron, to calculate the damage from this pressure?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 07, 2011, 03:47:39 AM
Eh? Windus, Comodo Dragons stalk their prey for days. You don't succumb to sickness as soon as you are bitten. So, there would be no poison damage.
Also, while that is the case for Comodo Dragons, I don't think that is the case for all carrion eaters. Comodos are unique is this way, I'd suppose.


On the Warg/Hyena bit: Someone was saying to me one time, about how wargs weren't just big dogs, and that's why you could use them as mounts (because dogs don't have they kind of endurance for a rider, or something to that nature). Just wondering if that's the case, or if they're just big wolves.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 07, 2011, 04:46:08 AM
Bite strength tells you little.  I mean, human teeth can crush bone... It's actually common dining practice in many cultures, to break bones in your teeth to get at the marrow.  And "pounds per square inch" tells you nothing, if measured on the ends of teeth, which necessarily have a tiny surface area.  It's a deceptive way of reporting information, unless you're really trying to measure an animal's ability to put tooth marks in a baseball, or calculating stress on the teeth for dental work.

As far as combat effectiveness (i.e. charge value), their ability to use teeth to hold, tear, and shake a target are the primary concerns.  If, in the process of running you over (as a horse would also do), they can manage to grab some part in their teeth, it should effectively tear off that part ... again, the dog vs. rabbit image, where the dog's teeth can't really cut rabbit skin that effectively (at least not while the rabbit is still alive and trying to escape), but it can still shake the rabbit to death.


-------------
and unrelated, but cleaning up the board:

The Komodo Dragon is venomous, but much more deadly than the venom is the mix of deadly bacteria in their mouths, which turn the venom-damaged tissues into a massive case of gangrene almost instantly.  Their bite will put most targets into septic shock within minutes, unless they go up against something that is just particularly resistant to that sort of thing (like a tanker-truck full of penicillin).  They do use what is known as post-attacking, where like venomous snakes, they bite the target and then wait.  Usually they don't have to wait long.  Biologically, none of this is odd - it follows closely the hunting practices of other monitor lizards across Asia, as well as the venomous Gila Monster and Mexican Beaded Lizard of North America.

Fortunately, Tolkien had enough sense of style to NOT have his orcs riding dinosaur-like lizards ... thank God.  And canines are not known for having disgusting bacteria in their mouths, unless they just dug their lunch out of a garbage can (which, granted, is something canines love to do ... but whatever).

Dogs could carry riders if they were big enough.  Large species have been known to carry small children.  Just that they are not big enough to carry an adult, and as they have a habit of turning on their masters, it's generally not a good idea to let them carry an infant out of your sight.

None of that really impacts the mod, however.  Tolkien was pretty specific on the Wargs, and so we have to shoot for copying his image of them.  And right now, the question is specifics of their combat effectiveness in a fast pass against a hostile humanoid.  That's a pretty specific problem, and one we probably can't solve by trying to break it down into component parts (i.e. bite strength, body weight, and so forth).

What I would really need is to simulate this using coyotes and small monkeys ... although coyotes and rabbits will probably have to do, since there are no monkeys native to North America, but somebody can probably find some good video of smaller-size wild canine attacks on larger species of rabbits.  That's about the size ratio we need.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 07, 2011, 04:57:17 AM
Didn't realize they were also venomous. Maybe that nature documentory wanted to skim over that, to focus on their diseased-saliva.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: WindusAndar on November 07, 2011, 05:55:41 AM
@ Conners: OR I don't remember that venomous part. It was a long time ago. :P

Thanks for the information, Ron. :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 07, 2011, 06:19:37 AM
(Yeah, I've seen those lizards before... fortunately, caged.  They don't generally announce it, but all of the monitor lizards are venomous - some much more potent than others.  The Komodo Dragon gets the most press, but the only slightly smaller Giant Monitor of Southeast Asia is a lot more dangerous to both people and livestock, and their numbers are hardly what you would call "endangered"... those things hunt in packs.)


Update on the project:
Starting to get back into my rhythm here, and it's getting easier.  Swords and armor I can handle ... it's the darn odd-lot stuff like trolls that throw me off.  Hope we're still on schedule to have this test-ready before the end of the week.  I know I'm sure looking forward to seeing it all work together.  Still, word of warning ... first version will be rough.  I'm not doing much of anything to refine it, until we see it working.  "Magic" items, in particular, may be WAY out of balance.
dont bother with trolls/ents much. Their main damage is scripted
Also of note:  To everybody who noticed that the Lembas bread was bugged, over in the bug reports... I fixed that while I was looking at the file.  Somebody forgot to flag it "itp_food".  Haven't tested it yet, but that was clearly the bug.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 07, 2011, 07:07:41 AM
Packs of venomous aggressive lizards..? It's either Jurassic Park, or the Geckos from Fallout2.


Once all the regular weapons are balanced, then you can see if the trolls seem off.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 07, 2011, 08:52:33 AM
For the record, and comedy relief as it were ... I don't bench press 300 pounds.  I try to stay away from weight rooms, as the sound and smell of sweaty guys lifting heavy things is rather distasteful.  The only black belt I have is the leather one that holds up my slacks.

For clarity's sake: that commentary wasn't a poke at you, but my statement as to why I'm not going into my own experiences. I only talk about that sort of thing with people I feel I know to some degree. To this day the contrast of white and bright red brings back very specific visuals for me: I know the kind of thing you're talking about.

That we disagree on the needed level of realism, or how that plays out in the context of gameplay, is neither here nor there, really. To me, the discussion was academic -- I've worked in the RPG industry in the past. Game mechanics are part of my lexicon. 

In the end, you're the man who's taking on the task. It's an impressive amount of work done with the best of intentions, and I have great respect for that. Best of luck with it.

So if you cant have leather ranger armour being like plate, and you can't have rangers wearing plate, (or anything else other then what they are said to have worn, remember we are not making this stuff up, it is someone elses world, not ours.) then we have to come up with a third option to account for the pure skill these men have.

I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but please don't put words in my mouth.  This is not in any way, shape, or form, what I was suggesting. This kind of reply creates extremes that were never actually expressed, and distorts the discussion. I did not advocate radical alteration of values, such as leather armour protecting like plate, nor suggest that Tolkien's work should cease being the prime consideration. In fact, my opinion was quite the opposite in that regard.

The Rangers of the North numbered, if I recall correctly, only about 30 at the time of the War of the Ring. When they rode south to meet with Aragorn, at least, their numbers were vastly reduced.  While they travelled with weather-worn gear, green cloaks, and their cloak-pin/broach of the Numenor star as Rangers... when they rode south to war, they were kitted out with mail and long swords.

As the mod chose to go with arming the Rangers with shortswords and kitting them out in leather, rather than disrespect the effort that went into that, I simply suggested that their equipment be tweaked to make them the formidable force they were supposed to be.  If they (the top couple tiers, at least) were to be fit out in mail instead, and provided with Arnor 'bastard swords', that would work quite well -- and be absolutely true to Tolkien's work. They could even be mounted, to capture the full flavour of how they evolved in the story itself -- bearing bows so that if the mount is killed, or in a siege, they have more flexibility of use.

Hell, I'd even be willing to re-texture a model to create a mailed Ranger look... but I rather suspect the mod's filled up the number of models that M&B can accommodate.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Oyclo on November 07, 2011, 08:58:13 AM
Tolkien never got too specific on how wargs would kill beyond that they were wolves, evil,  and above normal animal intelligence (but basically all animals are above average intelligence in Tolkien, which sort of changes where you define average but I digress). 

Personally I think the current model is actually quite a good approximation on how a VERY large wolf would 'fight'  Now obviously we can't do pack hunting techniques as well but if I may present exhibit A.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Komondor_Westminster_Dog_Show_crop.jpg/220px-Komondor_Westminster_Dog_Show_crop.jpg

We've owned a few of these dogs.  They look like sheep dogs but they are wolf killers.  They have VERY small mouths and bad teeth for their size (the side effect of their breeding).  What they have is those thick dreadlocks (weight/armor) and they THROW their bodies when they fight.  They bludgeon what they are fighting down.  We had one who tried to go through a window to get someone coming to our door.  The dog threw its whole body into the (luckily) very thick glass next to the front door which would have toppled most people.   (They dropped their clipboard, ran off and never came back). 

Overly sized wargs, hunting slower smaller prey (men) would not follow the same hunting tactics as african hunting dogs.  They would use their size to their advantage to get the prey prone where they are less effective fighting and vulnerable to attack. 

I'd love to see a bite attack added to wargs for horses though, that would be a classic predator prey attack but no idea if thats possible with the engine.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 07, 2011, 09:07:35 AM
Oh! The doggy looks so funny :green:! Can't resist cute anim-.... did you say "wolf-killer" O_O...?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Oyclo on November 07, 2011, 09:19:43 AM
Oh! The doggy looks so funny :green:! Can't resist cute anim-.... did you say "wolf-killer" O_O...?

Yes they could be quite fierce.  I grew up with a lot of dogs and this was the only kind I'd not know what to do with if it attacked me, it has almost no weak spot.  That fur might as well be a suit of armor.  Its only real weakness is that selective breeding didn't help its jaws out, normally once they get old their teeth (which are quite small) are almost gone, bad joints too, perhaps from the extra weight of the fur (I forget the average weight of it but its HEAVY and dense).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MrGrendel on November 07, 2011, 12:31:58 PM
It's a bit sad to see orcs treated as typical movie redshirts when Tolkien clearly ascribed feats of great strength to them and pointed out their workmanship could be second to dwarves when they had a mind to mine or smith.

care to quote on the bolded part?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Oyclo on November 07, 2011, 01:01:10 PM
It's a bit sad to see orcs treated as typical movie redshirts when Tolkien clearly ascribed feats of great strength to them and pointed out their workmanship could be second to dwarves when they had a mind to mine or smith.

care to quote on the bolded part?

I have no idea where my copy of the hobbit is but yes he did basically say that they were almost as good as the dwarves mining, they didn't like to work, they didn't make beautiful things, and they like to make things which killed large numbers of people. 

Someone with the books handy will have to find it, but its there.

mhm, I thought I remembered about mining, yes. Right off the bat I'd like to point out that in The Hobbit the orcs were quite different to the later LOTR ones, their nature as good smiths most likely among them. There are always difficulties about "what's canon", we've gone a different route here. I'd still love to read the actual parts, anyone?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: ghanburighan on November 07, 2011, 01:18:09 PM
from chapter 4 of The Hobbit (Over Hill and Under Hill)
Quote
"They can tunnel and mine as well as any but the most skilled dwarves, when they take the trouble, though they are usually untidy and dirty. Hammers, axes, swords, daggers, pickaxes, tongs, and also instruments of torture, they make very well, or get other people to make to their design, prisoners and slaves that have to work till they die for want of air and light. It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them, and also not working with their own hands more than they could help; but in those days and those wild parts they had not advanced, as it is called, so far."
 

So yes, goblins invented machine guns and dynamite  :D

(but I think Tolkien wrote this as part of a children's story, and not so much with the entire Middle-earth legendarium in mind that he later developed)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Oyclo on November 07, 2011, 02:56:21 PM


mhm, I thought I remembered about mining, yes. Right off the bat I'd like to point out that in The Hobbit the orcs were quite different to the later LOTR ones, their nature as good smiths most likely among them. There are always difficulties about "what's canon", we've gone a different route here. I'd still love to read the actual parts, anyone?

There is a definite change of tone from the Hobbit to the LoTR, though the history from the book stays the same.  As someone who spent WAY to much time working on a Tolkien Mud, my opinion is that while orc carftsmanship was no where near the dwarf  top level (and don't forget the dwarves used their rings for the older superior items they made) it didn't outright suck either.

That being said that when the Dwarves tried to retake Moria, beat Azog, and 'won' the battle (but it was a pyrrhic victory, the battle was fought outside and the dwarves could not retake it) the remaining dwarves had to carry a back breaking amount of armor home because they didn't want the Orcs to get them. 

Another factor to think of is that a major theme of the books is that things in the west have been in decline.  The best armor and weapons are more like artifacts left over from greater days.  Only the nobles and elite units would be so equipped.  The average soldier would have 'current' equipment which would be maybe well made but mundane. 

Anyways I have a lot of thoughts on how to keep orcs in line with the book and how they would work with M&B but its moot until we see how RCM works. 
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 07, 2011, 06:28:04 PM
Here's one quote: "They make no beautiful things, but they make many clever ones... Hammers, axes, swords, daggers, pickaxes, tongs, and also instruments of torture, they make very well, or get other people to make to their design, prisoners and slaves that have to work till they die for want of air and light.  It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions have always delighted them..."

That is apparently from The Hobbit. I do recall something about orcs being skilled craftsmen in LotR.... just can't remember where.
Of course, even if the orcs can make good weapons and armour, they are also VERY numerous--so it could be that they don't have that much of the good armour to go around.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 08, 2011, 08:51:50 AM
Tolkien marked orcs as being given to violence and darker things, and generally excelling at them.... but being of such violent temperament, and so prone to in-fighting and killing one another, that they indulge more in self-destruction than anything else without strong leadership. It's when somebody powerful enough can assert their will over them, preventing them from killing one another and giving them a new target, that they become really dangerous.

I can't remember where it was mentioned specifically, but he mentioned that they made good, durable armour and weapons... but they were ugly things. They were also good at the healing arts, when needed, but didn't care much about the pain involved or the scars it would leave. They were meant to be strong and dangerous, but so prone to killing one another, and back-stabbing one another, that they didn't really have time for their strength to grow. Their lifespan was uncertain, and may even have effectively been immortal -- as were the elves -- but their violence was such that any notion of a natural lifespan was unknown.

All this put together, it makes sense that the weaker orcs should be much easier fare, and shoddily armed and armoured. After all, the stronger orcs will simply kill their fellows and take that which makes them stronger -- arms and armour. What humans accomplish through accident of birth and/or economic means, the orcs do through violence.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 08, 2011, 09:07:38 AM
Yeah, that sounds accurate.

So, the Elite orcs should get some pretty darned good armour (equal to the human armours, maybe?), I'd suppose.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 08, 2011, 10:33:47 AM
My impression of it was that all races had master craftsmen of one stripe or another. Men, especially in antiquity, were capable of making remarkable things. The Arnorian shortsword that the hobbits were gifted with after escaping the Wight was a dangerous blade. The old Dunadain had a touch of the elven way in them.

The elves, being as tightly bound to The Song as they were, seemed to affect reality itself with their whims. They didn't recognize it as magic, though common men would have called it such. It's why their waybread was so satisfying and would not spoil. Their mail so fine that it might appear as fish scales, but capable of being so strong that no arrow could pierce it (the armour of the Mormagil, in the Silmarillion). But they were tied by fate, and so restrained. It was men, particularly Numenorians, who were more likely to do great or terrible things (but when an elf-lord set his mind to something.... whooooo-eee!). Gandalf has been described as a being of almost angelic power or import; I believe the same could be said of the great elf-lords.

The dwarves were miracle workers with the things they'd delve out of the earth, rivaling the elves in the quality of their material.  But whereas I've always imagined the elves defied physics, as it were, and made lighter mail that was just as (if not more) durable than man-made, I see the dwarves as making of comparable weight, but much more sturdy. Whereas orcs, who seemed to care little for physical suffering or beauty, I figured would make things that were functional (as much as man-made), but very heavy -- they miss the fine points and subtle touches, making up for it with weight and counting upon their strength to make that work for them.

At least, that was the impression I was left with. Mileage varies.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Oyclo on November 08, 2011, 10:58:24 AM
At least, that was the impression I was left with. Mileage varies.

I think thats pretty accurate.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MrGrendel on November 08, 2011, 07:08:31 PM
/ramble mode on

Quote
"They can tunnel and mine as well as any but the most skilled dwarves, when they take the trouble, though they are usually untidy and dirty. Hammers, axes, swords, daggers, pickaxes, tongs, and also instruments of torture, they make very well, or get other people to make to their design
 

So yes, goblins invented machine guns and dynamite  :D

(but I think Tolkien wrote this as part of a children's story, and not so much with the entire Middle-earth legendarium in mind that he later developed)

Yeah, that's one of the quotes I was thinking of. Frankly I've been too busy at work or playing this excellent mod you guys have made here to do much in the way of digging out my books. Maybe I'll try to dig up some stuff later and post it here.

However, I should point out that Tolkien also stated that his orcs started small as goblins in the earlier books and became larger and more vile and dangerous as it became more of an adult series... so if you're going to treat this quote that way, then you should by the same token have more "orcs" than "goblins"... and that's not to say their skill at smithing would decrease in the slightest, either.

On the other hand, maybe partly due to this as well, they definitely also had the most variation. You actually even seem to have "bred" strains of tracking orcs, as evidenced by the description of the small, snuffling orc with a huge nostril, seeming to smell out trails... but who still ends up able to kill a much larger "soldier" breed in a heart-to-heart. And on the other end of the spectrum, you have an orc able to knock Boromir on his ass in combat, through his defense, or pick up two grown hobbits and run, while ducking, at full speed without flagging, with "terrifying" strength... etc.

Another thing to consider is that much of what Tolkien wrote about orcs is put in contrast due to the nature of his writing "heroic epic" type stuff. Anything looks shoddy put next to a company of heroes. I don't think "weak" or "inept" is ever his choice of words. The good guys didn't win because the orcs were inferior. That would be doing Tolkien a disservice. They won because of their own qualities.

One weakness he does describe about orcs a number of times, though, that I think could be brought out a little more... is that they seem to be heavily reliant on a leader. When their great ones fall... in battle or per Sauron... they easily flee. Incidentally, I think Tolkien did play with the idea that they're not truly sentient on their own, so... well, that gets off topic. But it sorta plays into the whole "pupper master dies, puppets go limp" thing.

If I had the sort of talent and time the mod developers here have invested into this, I'd say try to combine a general strength increase (which could involve armor) with some sort of "morale" related challenge for orc troops. A way to make the good guys outnumbered and outclassed in sheer force... but let's say if you kill all the orc standard bearers, and/or the captain, and you have a chance of making the entire orc force route and run for the hills... that sort of thing. It could be nice for both sides, but have a much stronger effect vs. orcs.

Quote
Their lifespan was uncertain, and may even have effectively been immortal -- as were the elves -- but their violence was such that any notion of a natural lifespan was unknown.

Tolkien himself rarely went into much detail on orcs, and he tended to change his mind on the matters as well, but you can find at least one orc who was "documented" over 150 years old and died in battle, that is to say: still in good enough shape to go out and fight. Tolkien, who I doubt was ever too careless with his dates, notes the year of his ascension to chiefhood and later mentions the year he died in. Interestingly, he became chief when his father died, but that probably should go in a thread on... orcthropology? Heh heh.

/ramble mode off
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 08, 2011, 07:36:03 PM
@Northcott: Not too heavy, though. Orcs already seem to have more arrows in them than bones, at the current rate. Slowing them down too much coul worsen matters in that regard.
Although, we could make their armour better than normal, but much heavier, perhaps (at least for the elite orcs, maybe)...? Just an idea.


Incidentally, I think Tolkien did play with the idea that they're not truly sentient on their own, so... well, that gets off topic. But it sorta plays into the whole "pupper master dies, puppets go limp" thing.
Humans can just as easily do that. The orcs obviously have sentience, based off their conversations and the like which the hobbits got to hear.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MrGrendel on November 08, 2011, 07:45:34 PM
The orcs obviously have sentience, based off their conversations and the like which the hobbits got to hear.

Oh, clearly. I just meant it was an idea he considered when deciding on the nature of orcs. Personally, I think he was troubled about sentient beings doing great evil... and maybe his toying with this idea influenced why victories over orcs seemed so often to coincide with their leader falling. I'd say it would be possible they draw mental strength from Maiar leading them... but we could call it "morale issues" too. ;)

Anyway, while I have a little time, here's another quote. I should probably point out that Beleg was a Sindar elf. Naturally there may have been many circumstances we can't account for, but the fact that he needed to say this at all should be telling: orc armor was definitely not something to take lightly, even early on... and even as an elf he didn't ask for just any old sword.

Quote from: Silmarillion, Beleg at the Thousand Caves
'I ask then for a sword of worth, for the Orcs come now too thick and close for a bow only, and such blade as I have is no match for their armour.'

As far as the target audience for the books goes, I don't think there's any reason to assume that when Tolkien went from the Hobbit to the Trilogy the orcs ability to make instruments of death was lessened. On the contrary, they seemed to become larger and more dangerous. Unlike things like talking trolls and the goblins smaller, child/hobbit-like size (a point he admitted was influenced by the book being written for a younger audience) I don't see anything "childish" in saying they were good at making instruments of killing and torture. I would assume that as he said nothing to the contrary after the Hobbit, they were still completely effective at making good albeit ugly weapons and armor, and Beleg seems to have agreed, at least. :)

Disclaimer: On the low end, I'm sure the "snaga" level of orc gear was the most awful in every way possible. Tolkien did imply they had to be motivated to put out this level of work. However, in my opinion, on the higher end, the top tier orc stuff actually should be quite a bit better than most give it credit for, possibly even above human and below dwarves/elves, if there's a weight drawback. Certainly on par with humans at top tiers, however.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 08, 2011, 08:46:13 PM
Certainly on par with humans at top tiers, however.
Especially since orcs can live a long time, longer than humans. Would be interesting to have the strongest orcs be rivals to the elves and dwarves (not as strong, but on the same playing field).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MrGrendel on November 08, 2011, 09:18:40 PM
Would be interesting to have the strongest orcs be rivals to the elves and dwarves (not as strong, but on the same playing field).

I'd say it would be fairly lore accurate for the top tier orcs, but combined with their potential to outnumber their enemy as well, I think you would absolutely have to factor in some sort of routing trigger and script. Battles should seem overwhelming, not only in terms of numbers but also force...

That is, until you manage (bravely or luckily) to wade through the enemy ranks, chop their best troops down in melee, and suddenly there's a good chance half the entire orc force starts running off the field in terror. :) To me, that would feel more like Tolkien, where a single act of courage might turn the tables and orcs have no sense of "But this is not that day!"

Sniping key orcs would be cheating, naturally.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 08, 2011, 09:34:01 PM
Come to think of it, there is a Morale Mod for 1.011 isn't there? The TLD fellows should take that, and modify it to suit (I think it was open for use in other mods).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MadVader on November 09, 2011, 01:55:58 AM
Come to think of it, there is a Morale Mod for 1.011 isn't there? The TLD fellows should take that, and modify it to suit (I think it was open for use in other mods).
Already debated with mixed results, and implementation likely dependent on heavy bribery or extortion.
Note that you can't just plop some mini-mod into TLD. While inserting the code is not hard, publicly available code is very often of low quality and has plenty of bugs, which is not good enough for TLD (with very few bright exceptions, notably mototamaru's Formations and AI kit).
The greatest problem is the design of any morale system. As a player, you want them to start to run away at some exact epic moments (not earlier or later), which are specific for each battle, and not easily translated into math formulas.
And there's the annoying chase around the battlefield, when, for example, you kill off enough of the first wave, and they start to run away, your troops get split in pursuit and slaughtered piecemeal by the second wave. Of course you can regroup, but you'll likely lose some troops that get separated.
I wonder what is the percentage of players that would turn morale off, after trying it out for several battles. My guess is about 50%.  Which is still probably worth implementing. A dark contract has been signed with GA's own blood. We'll see. ;)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 09, 2011, 03:56:41 AM
Have you folks looked at the Morale one yet? Who knows, it might be well-coded.

The next step, would be to check around the other mods to see if anyone else has done any epic morale-ness. Hopefully, they'd be willing to help TLD by sharing some of their code.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 09, 2011, 04:05:23 AM
Update again:

Slight delays.  One of out teaching assistants nearly died on us yesterday (some kind of heart problem).  At last check, she was in good enough condition to complain, for whatever that's worth ... but this threw the whole school schedule into effective chaos, not to mention doing things to my mental condition that are not very good for building a game mod.  Thinking about violence and injury is bad enough ... doing so when you just had to carry somebody you know down three flights of stairs and over to the school clinic, wondering if she would be alive by the time you got there ... much worse.  Add the fact that I'm recovering from some broken ribs from several months ago (that are not healing well), so carrying somebody down stairs yesterday has added a great deal of physical pain to my life.

My Internet connection is also hit-and-miss, so I'm keeping up with comments here whenever I can.

So I'm still at slightly less than half way through.  It seems to be going together pretty well, however, and part of the delay is that I'm trying to be careful balancing things between factions and sub-factions (so we won't have quite so much to do over).

On the orc armors - subject of some debate here - the models we have now for TLD are, for the most part, rather light and providing very patchy coverage.  Even assuming that there is nothing wrong with the quality of their maille or trauma plates, the armor will have relatively low rating because it can be bypassed.  Some of the heavier ones looked to be pretty good protection, but those were rather the exception instead of the rule.  If they bother to build and wear the stuff, I would assume that it would take a blow pretty well, if the blow hit armor and only armor (not "some armor plus some unprotected skin").

Anyway, I'll model what is there.  If somebody thinks particular orcs should have options of much heavier gear, they will probably have to build it first, before I can put stats on it.  If so, that's a different discussion ... if, after this is tested and running, somebody wants to start a "are the orcs under-rated compared to the books?" thread ... I'll put stats on whatever new stuff you all want to add.

If I ever get down to the orc stuff.   Not there yet.  Still finishing up on all the sub-factions of Gondor (which have about a gazillion different uniforms, of vastly different protective properties ranging from soft leather to absurdly heavy-looking maille with trauma plates).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Xatham on November 09, 2011, 04:41:44 AM
You don't see that one coming, just looking at the statistics ... or in real life, for that matter (historically, how many kings have been killed or disabled by stray arrows accidentally hitting the softest part of their armor?)... but it always shows up when you least expect it.

Harold Godwinson was killed by a stray arrow at the battle of Hastings. It did happen. :)

For the reccord, I'm very skeptical of "optional" content in mods. It's much better to show strong leadership, decide where you're going to take things, and then go with that rather than having two unsatisfactory versions of the mod.

While I haven't played RCM in TLD, from what people say it certainly does seem like it would be the better direction for the mod.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 09, 2011, 07:02:05 AM
Harold Godwinson ... a rather obscure example, actually.  He wasn't the only one.

Ahab, King of Israel ... hit by an arrow fired in volley, at Ramoth Gilead.  Died of wounds shortly thereafter.

Hannibal ... hit in the throat by a Roman arrow, nobody knows for sure but it was assumed to be a random lucky shot.  Hannibal survived the injury (nobody knows how or why), but it surely put him out of action for a while.

Prince Howe (later King Henry V of England) ... hit in the face by an arrow fired at random, at Shrewsbury, 1403.  The arrowhead had to be removed with a most ingenious device, which everyone should look up.  (The device was recently featured in a History Channel episode on ancient medicine.)

That's just a few off the top of my head.  There have been dozens, if I cared to look them up.  Seems that being fatally or at least critically hit by random arrows, crossbow bolts, musket ball, and sling stones was more common than contracting chicken pox. 

That's what I mean about the luck factor.  Modern armies use this heavily, as "fire suppression" - just shoot a lot in the general direction of the enemy, and let luck do the rest.  In ancient warfare (i.e. before the machine gun) the technique required having more guys with bows.  They didn't have to be particularly good at anything - any dork with any kind of bow can contribute to keeping a constant hail of arrows falling out of the sky.  No matter how good the enemy's armor or shields, occasionally one would draw blood.

Relative to the mod - even if the orcs have somewhat inferior gear and training, the hail of arrows and the hordes of troops you would have to hack through to get at their archers should level the playing field.  Unlike what you see in most games, RCM stats mean that while armor is generally more effective, the arrows that do draw blood will often be very serious wounds.

We'll wait and see how it balances, before making any too serious of changes.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MrGrendel on November 09, 2011, 10:04:48 AM
Jeez Ron, sorry to hear about your colleague. That's rough. Take a break if you need, it's not like we can't wait a bit here. ;)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Oyclo on November 09, 2011, 10:36:58 AM
Relative to the mod - even if the orcs have somewhat inferior gear and training, the hail of arrows and the hordes of troops you would have to hack through to get at their archers should level the playing field.  Unlike what you see in most games, RCM stats mean that while armor is generally more effective, the arrows that do draw blood will often be very serious wounds.

We'll wait and see how it balances, before making any too serious of changes.

Good to hear as right now using orc archers is next to useless.  As an experiment playing as an elf with a warhorse I simply let them shoot me.  Horse was 0 damage no matter what, myself which was slightly less armored I think took about a maximum of 9, but usually it was between 0-3.

I hope everything is ok with the TA, I've had to deal with that myself and its always difficult.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MrGrendel on November 09, 2011, 07:02:53 PM
On the orc armors - subject of some debate here - the models we have now for TLD are, for the most part, rather light and providing very patchy coverage.  Even assuming that there is nothing wrong with the quality of their maille or trauma plates, the armor will have relatively low rating because it can be bypassed.

I think that seems just fine for most of the low tier troops, as per Tolkien's implication that they were able but generally lacked motivation to make good stuff. Considering that they were capable of better, perhaps it could be cheaper for the player to purchase, likely already reflected in orc recruiting costs and upkeep. A master smith could probably churn out a piece of average armor or crude javelins very easily. In that vein, they could also have ammo bundle size increases to reflect this.

Some of the heavier ones looked to be pretty good protection, but those were rather the exception instead of the rule.  If they bother to build and wear the stuff, I would assume that it would take a blow pretty well, if the blow hit armor and only armor (not "some armor plus some unprotected skin").

Orcs who could make others do the job properly could likely get right nice gear. I'd imagine that would mean the top half of the tiers would be on par with humans, or debatably even better.* In terms of typical army compositions, that still means only a small number of orcs would be that well-equipped.

Anyway, I'll model what is there.  If somebody thinks particular orcs should have options of much heavier gear, they will probably have to build it first, before I can put stats on it.  If so, that's a different discussion ... if, after this is tested and running, somebody wants to start a "are the orcs under-rated compared to the books?" thread ... I'll put stats on whatever new stuff you all want to add.

I'll be happy to kick off that discussion, but first I'm very much looking forward to seeing things rebalanced. :)

*With some reading between the lines... if orcs can mine "as well as any but the most skilled  dwarves, when they take the trouble" and he says in the same paragraph that they also do smithing "very well," it doesn't seem implausible to suggest their smithing skill has potential to rival lesser or average dwarf-gear in terms of effectiveness. Assuming "man is the measure," they seem to at least have an edge on humans in terms of smithing implements of war, with the caveat that they underperform unless driven.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 09, 2011, 09:50:55 PM
Good to hear as right now using orc archers is next to useless.  As an experiment playing as an elf with a warhorse I simply let them shoot me.  Horse was 0 damage no matter what, myself which was slightly less armored I think took about a maximum of 9, but usually it was between 0-3.

I hope everything is ok with the TA, I've had to deal with that myself and its always difficult.

Likely depends on a few factors. The Uruk archers out of Isengard aren't anything to sneeze at. I've had them do significant damage to my elves and Dunedain, and watched them decimate the Rohirrim.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: TheMageLord on November 09, 2011, 10:23:05 PM
Good to hear as right now using orc archers is next to useless.  As an experiment playing as an elf with a warhorse I simply let them shoot me.  Horse was 0 damage no matter what, myself which was slightly less armored I think took about a maximum of 9, but usually it was between 0-3.

I hope everything is ok with the TA, I've had to deal with that myself and its always difficult.

Likely depends on a few factors. The Uruk archers out of Isengard aren't anything to sneeze at. I've had them do significant damage to my elves and Dunedain, and watched them decimate the Rohirrim.

Thats because their bows do 23 pierce damage, whereas the regular orc bows do 20 cutting damage. 23 pierce damage can actually penetrate armor, 20 cutting damage won't do anything to anyone in decent armor. Neither measure up to the good side bows though.

The good side bows are: 25 pierce for elves (with 3 PD req, which makes PD up to 7 count), 43 cut for Rohan, 42 cut for Gondor. The evil side bows: 23 pierce for Isengard with 0 PD req (so only up to 4 PD counts), 20 cut for all orcs. Some of the human evil factions have decent bows though - corsairs get a 35 cut bow, which is good enough to pierce Gondor armor pretty well.

Add in the fact that most top end good troops are heavily armored and you quickly realize why you have very little to fear from orc arrows when playing a good guy. With the weak armor of most evil troops, the higher damage good bows tear them to pieces - so you have a whole hell of a lot to fear from arrows when playing the evil side  :P
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 09, 2011, 10:33:30 PM
Especially since their shields seem to fall apart so easily... while Rivendell shields can soak 1,000 points of damage.  :o

Only the strong Rohan bows have 43 cut, though. Many of them don't end up with that; they get the weaker bows, or the throwing weapons... which can be deadly, but very rarely hit.

I've been thinking that the elves would actually benefit from standard bows with lower power draw requirement. At a base 3, most of them only have 3 PD... and you can see the effect of that when you stand beside them and watch them try to aim. Mind you, until the equipment is balanced so that the orcs actually have some protection, that'd be overkill.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 09, 2011, 11:58:07 PM
And of course all of that comparison will be completely moot, if I ever get this stuff together.  Bow damage in the new stats will be more in the range of -  minimum more than 40 cut, before power draw added, and going up from there... after minimum power-draw calculations are added, base damage of up to 80 or more in some cases.  Armor will be heavier, as well, but the increase in both specs mean that while many arrows will still not go through the armor, those that do might be insignificant or they might do terrible damage. 

That last little bit - the odd chance that if an arrow does go through the armor, it might just be a couple of points of damage or it might be 30 or 40 - is the random factor that will keep even the heavier troops dodging.  In RCM mods, you don't just take a couple of hits ... because maybe the armor will save you (a lot of attacks completely fail to penetrate), or maybe the attacker will get lucky and land a devastating blow, and you can never really predict which it will be.

The shields are also reworked - low hit points and high armor value, so you can break them if you really hit them hard with a big axe or something, but you can't just wear them out by scratching on them with a pocketknife or some such.  Much more the way wood actually behaves when hit with weapons.

Bow accuracy is also less of a problem in RCM stats - I moved most of the damage to the arrows, so the bow damage impacting accuracy is minimized.  I've done some archery (killed some critters bow-hunting, back when), and M&B does normally make hitting anything with a bow unreasonably hard.  That will be fixed.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: trueten on November 10, 2011, 03:05:36 AM
Never played with any type of RCM, but I hope the stuff's stats won't get far from Native one's. Like in 1257 AD Warband mod, where most swords cause 50-60 damage; armours have 80-100 points of protection; bows have +3-6 damage, but arrows have +30-40 damage >:^(
Hate that.

What's the problem with numbers, if the effect and feeling from combat will be correct? Numbers are pure secondary
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 10, 2011, 04:00:09 AM
Never played with any type of RCM, but I hope the stuff's stats won't get far from Native one's. Like in 1257 AD Warband mod, where most swords cause 50-60 damage; armours have 80-100 points of protection; bows have +3-6 damage, but arrows have +30-40 damage >:^(
Hate that.
I don't think even the articulated plate armour has 100 armour points in RCM... What was the armour with 100 points, in 1257 AD mod?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: neuromant on November 10, 2011, 04:30:11 AM
To answer GA, the problem with these number was the following:
you had basically the impression to fight armored tanks. Swords were next to useless, even two-handed long swords, you had to use a mace for the blunt damage.

This happened in other mods for Warband, the one with the dark knights invasion as well (Native Expansion: dark knights were basically unstoppable machines that, with ten veteran people armed with long swords you could not dream to stop even one).

This is due to a big limitation of the engine, for if you put in cut damage - which make sense for a sword - you are effectively rendering it pointless against strong armor (if you put the above mentioned numbers). I, for one, think that even a 1.5 kg sword, when maneuvered with some strength, can inflict blunt damage to very strong armors. Of course less than a heavier mass designed for this, but it is still pretty efficient.

This is of no great concern here, for plate armors are not present, but just to know, would it be possible to implement two types of damage for one weapon (meaning one weapon movement, not the usual separation between swing and thrust) ?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 10, 2011, 04:49:05 AM
Well, in Warband there is the ability to change the way you're using the weapon. For M&B... it might be possible for the TLD devs if they did a lot of work, maybe...? Doubt it'll be worth-while, at that rate, though.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 10, 2011, 04:53:08 AM
Never played with any type of RCM, but I hope the stuff's stats won't get far from Native one's. Like in 1257 AD Warband mod, where most swords cause 50-60 damage; armours have 80-100 points of protection; bows have +3-6 damage, but arrows have +30-40 damage >:^(
Hate that.

Well, the numbers are going to be FAR from Native ... but they will be accurate and balanced.  The numbers you just threw on that post would be both unplayable and unrealistic, for a number of reasons.  No armor, unless it's magic or sci-fi or some such, should be able to absorb 100 points worth.  (Well, full tournament plate, late Renaissance ... but that was too heavy to wear for anything but a tournament.)  Hand-and-a-half swords tend to work out to 45 to 50 points - potentially fatal to an unarmored target in one solid hit, even in the hands of a novice, but not overrated so that any hit whatsoever is debilitating.  Same with arrows - 45 to 60 points is not uncommon, but it is converted to "cut" type damage, to reflect the fact that an arrow wound is awful but they don't really penetrate armor any better than anything else.

It sounds like the 1257 mod saw some of my previous work, and got the idea to make it more Hollywood.  Because those numbers won't stand up to testing, at least not after all the M&B engine modifications for power strike, skill, and whatever ... not if Warband uses anything close to the same calculation as 1.0x to figure damage.  (Can't say for sure that they do.)  They would come out about twice too high in some cases, and so not stand up to the real-world data of people surviving many of those injuries, or at least not going down immediately from them.

The bow damage being transferred to the arrows is a technical necessity - M&B lowers the accuracy of bows relative to their damage, but does so very quickly.  Therefore, if you want the bows to work, you have to move as much of the damage as possible to the arrows, where the numbers will not impact anything else except damage.

Anyway, the Devil is in the details.  It's not just about a re-scale, like taking Native stats and multiplying them by 3 or 4 ... it's about creating realistic balance between items and the anatomy of living things.  A lot of attempts to re-scale Native numbers have just turned "unrealistic" into "unrealistic on steroids" ... we don't do that here.  Not at all. 

But nor do I or any of the RCM fans tolerate things like bows that you can shoot an unarmored man four times in the face at point blank range and he doesn't even flinch.  I mean, there's an off chance somebody might take an arrow that should have been fatal and still survive ... but if it won't pass for medically feasible, it doesn't pass.

Just wait and try it.  It will be playable.  I've set these up before, and pretty much everybody here has played them before ... we all know that this works.

Assuming, that is, that I will quit typing and get back to work converting the numbers.........

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neuromant:  It's just numbers.  If you start with biology, i.e. how much damage a body can take before being disabled, compared to damage ... that will balance.  Then add in the armor values until it adds up.  Cut-type damage works against armors if you get enough of it - which is also true of swords in real life (i.e. they will do some damage, sometimes, through all but the most extreme of armors, if you can really hit them hard and squarely).  While custom damage types ("half pierce" or some such) might allow some extreme fine-tuning, the ones we have can be made to work for now.  One of the things that is changed is the module.ini section on how armor relates to damage ... and that makes a huge difference.

Anyway, they will work.  I guarantee it.  We've all done this before... that is, built, played, and balanced mods for these stats.  Tolkien selected a time period when armors were still in the realm of sane (pre- the insanely complex and heavy walking-tank tournament armors of the late Renaissance), so swords - at least the heavier ones - are still viable weapons against armored troops.  That makes balancing the mod a lot easier than if we had to have a lot of specialized infantry with pole-hammers just to deal with those walking tank types.  (That is, after all, what they did in reality ... artillery and heavy polearms to take the edge off of the really sturdy walking tin-cans.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updade for everybody:  Not much further than I was.  How in heck many sub-factions does Gondor have?  Has nobody in Middle Earth ever heard of using somewhat standardized equipment (even if it was decorated differently)?  Trying to figure out how to rate all those helmets is maddening.  I've had to go back and re-rate them several times to account for all the variations (without just rating very different-looking models the same ... which would be very bad form).

Anyway, it's slower going than I would have hoped ... even accounting for some real-world delays and such.  But progress continues.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 10, 2011, 05:23:31 AM
Ron, if you'd prefer, we can probably handle the Q&A for those who aren't sure about RCM.

I guess you could think of Gondor as having a lot of knight-orders. Knights don't tend to have standardized equipment, is my guess (quite possibly wrong, though). Of course, that's just one idea... they just might have a lot of armourers with very strong opinions on style.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 10, 2011, 05:59:48 AM
Actually, the large body of material was caused by the devs getting creative.  Every town and sub-region in Gondor's realm of influence has slightly different gear in-game, for every troop tier.  Interesting, from an eye-candy point of view (as it makes different units, well, different ... and mixed units look mixed) ... but it creates work when they all have to be reworked for specs.

Doing the Q&A on these things is just force of habit for me ... but sure, take over if you want.  I won't complain.  Although I may still chime in, just because old habits die hard, and I spent too long doing the PR and Q&A stuff for Onin-no-Ran, among others.

Still gaining ... think I got through all the Gondor-related armor and shields and such this afternoon ... still have a few weapons to go, then Lorien and the file starts on the orcs.  And I thought ONR, and TLD for .808, had a bunch of stuff ... neither one of them have anything on this.  I was hoping to have this by the end of the week ... I'm not going to make it, at least not without rushing it and making a bunch more mistakes.  (There are, I'm sure, already a bunch of typos and such.  Some of that is unavoidable.)  I'm developing a really massive headache, which I seriously hope is unrelated to TLD ... I just hope I'm not coming down with the flu or something.  That would be about my luck - get the flu just as several hundred people on at least four continents were waiting for me to do something.  Maybe, before I just give up and go to bed, I should try ibuprofen.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: neuromant on November 10, 2011, 06:13:11 AM
Ron: no worry, despite the small number of posts, I am also a long-time user of M&B. I tested most of your RCM conversions (maybe all of them), and I am a big fan, even if I don't agree exactly on every single detail. I was merely chatting about this issue with walking tanks. Thanks Tolkien we are in this very interesting setting!

Good luck to you, and take it easy, as it has been said, we are pretty patient people (especially now that we have something to chew! thanks again, all devs).

-------

Conners: are you speaking about the ability to switch from throwing axe to using the axe ? Or something else ? If first, then yes, it would be a nice addition to combat, it is a thing that always bugged me with original M&B. Or did I completely miss your sense ?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: trueten on November 10, 2011, 06:16:47 AM
To answer GA, the problem with these number was the following:
you had basically the impression to fight armored tanks. Swords were next to useless, even two-handed long swords, you had to use a mace for the blunt damage.
This.

I remember starting playing 1257 AD mod, when I tried to hit armored seargant with my sword and caused him minimum damage. The problem of M&B engine is that there is no armor classes you can set, like 'leather', 'mail' and 'plated'. M&B devides those classes by numbers. If defence stats reach 35-40 it counts like mail. More - plated.
It's not officially though, only my own assumption (but I see I'm not the only one) based on several fights in 1257 AD and cRPG mods.

I felt really useless when playing cRPG I tried to hit some plated 'tank' with my sabre, that causes 32 (swing?) damage, and I heared this 0 resault hit. It has its' certain sound to notificate if you even didn't scratch your opponent. And I'm sure if he had armor stats like 25-30, and my sabre could cause 10-15 damage, there would be this 'swing' sound and he would pretty sure felt my hit.

Now the bigger problem is that one-handed swings in M&B 1.011 usually cause zero damage, unless you spin aside pretty hard with your computer mouse. It feels like this was fixed in Warband. I never play one-handed in M&B because of this, but I surely can play it in WB.

And now lets take a look at TLD ME world - 80% of all troops use swords and sabres, although one-handed fight mechanics pretty sucks in M&B. And now if you will change most armor stats higher than 40, the one-handed sword fights could turn out to be a big pain.


On the other hand it's not the reason to stop or change your stat rebalancing work, Ron. I'm pretty eager to see how will it look in TLD. It's just I felt I need to share my concerns and I hope I'm wrong with all these theory.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Barf on November 10, 2011, 06:23:31 AM
Hand-and-a-half swords tend to work out to 45 to 50 points - potentially fatal to an unarmored target in one solid hit, even in the hands of a novice, but not overrated so that any hit whatsoever is debilitating.  Same with arrows - 45 to 60 points is not uncommon, but it is converted to "cut" type damage, to reflect the fact that an arrow wound is awful but they don't really penetrate armor any better than anything else.

I think the baseline for suckage with weapons should be a little lower....I just can't imagine my sister taking out an unarmored orc with one swing of a bastard sword, people who don't know how to swing a sword tend to swing them wrong and it hits slightly sideways and ends up laying flat, causing far less damage. Even if you add a strength requirement to the 1-hit kill weapons I have seen a 250lb man unable to split a log because he can't swing an axe worth a damn.

What I would propose is make the base-line for a 1 hit kill chest on unarmored into something like,
bastard sword w/ powerstrike 1, str req 12
arming sword powerstrike 4, no str req

Also the human body can take a great deal of damage, a couple arrows to your chest if it misses your heart and lungs is survivable, atleast until the end of the battle...I won't go into armor because this baseline is the most important thing to establish first imo.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: ghanburighan on November 10, 2011, 06:57:36 AM
I'm developing a really massive headache, which I seriously hope is unrelated to TLD ... I just hope I'm not coming down with the flu or something.  That would be about my luck - get the flu just as several hundred people on at least four continents were waiting for me to do something.  Maybe, before I just give up and go to bed, I should try ibuprofen.

Don't pressure yourself too much. Take your time; you don't owe us anything. Just remember, TLD fans have been waiting for about four years for this mod, so they can wait a little longer (and in the mean time there are bugs to hunt).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 10, 2011, 07:39:45 AM
@Neuromat: Yes, I meant the ability to swap between throwing and melee.
However, that same system can be used to swap between regular use of a sword and half-swording.


@trueten: Well, I had a lot of fun with the RCM for the last version of TLD. I was able to kill Heavy Gondor Infantry with a one-handed cleaver (you just need some power strike). So, it ought to be the same for this version.


@Barf:
We don't really need to model the system for people who can't swing with the edge. Actually, that could be modelled somewhat, simply by tapping the mouse lightly--you'll end up doing a swing with -200% speed and do 1 damage or something. So if you would like to fight like your sister apparently would, just tap the mouse very lightly, and don't swing the camera :D.
Weapon speed and AGI, which starts out very, very low in TLD, will also help simulate that rather nicely, I think.

With, "survivable", certainly... assuming you don't die of infection. However... do you think you could fight with two arrows in your organs? Most people can't... maybe if you had a lot of Iron Flesh points and got lucky it'd be doable (you'd still bleed out, more than likely).

People with pierced wounds can fight for quite some time before collapsing from blood loss or pain shock. In RL criminal statistics people regualrly happen to continue kicking for some time after taking a stab to the chest AFAIK. Arrow does not have internal explosive shock power of a bullet, it does not rupture internal organs that are not in the direct path. And if you don't pull arrow out, the wound would not even bleed much (unless it was a broad-blade-tip one)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 10, 2011, 10:58:19 AM
Ron doesn't need to field this one, as he's busy, but I'm curious about the correlation between damage and accuracy with bows. I've never run into that in M&B before. Accuracy was a modifiable stat with missile weapons; and with bows the closing of the reticule for player's accuracy was dependant on 1) the level of Power Draw compared to the requirement of the bow, and 2) the Archery skill of the character. So a more skilled character with higher power draw could pull and hold the string taut for longer, gaining more time to aim as well as a pinpoint reticule.

Or am I missing something in that equation?

Speed of the projectile (one of bow stats) affects your percieved accuracy a lot, because of 1) lower time in flight and 2) more straight trajectory
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MrGrendel on November 10, 2011, 05:57:11 PM
At some point this was addressed in a patch; Taleworlds reduced the trade-off between bow damage and accuracy so that higher tier bows would be more appealing. This may only have been in Warbands+, however, and I'm not sure to what extent, either.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 10, 2011, 06:11:50 PM
I'll get the bow accuracy question.  The M&B engine does reduce bow accuracy as damage increases.  A bow set to like 40 damage (at 100% accuracy) will produce the same accuracy results as a bow with 1 damage set to about accuracy 10% or less.  If you want any control over bow accuracy at all, it is absolutely necessary to put as much damage as possible on the arrow.  We discovered this back in M&B .808 working on Onin-no-Ran, but as far as I know, it's still in place (although it may have been reduced somewhat).  We tested the heck out of it - it's not just perception because of speed, the aiming reticule shows it.  (Credit to Fujiwara for actually putting numbers to this ... but I won't go into his calculations here.)  Suffice it to say that this little code oddity needs to be bypassed, unless you want some of the bows to be so inaccurate that you can aim straight ahead and still hit your own foot.  Bypassing it completely, by moving most of the damage numbers to the arrow, is the most certain solution.

On arrow damage:  One, arrows don't form the temporary cavity of a bullet, but with the exception of high-velocity rifle rounds, most temporary shock cavities from bullets are exactly that - temporary.  So while handgun rounds are more likely to knock you down (due to the sudden disorientation caused by this hydrostatic shock), an arrowhead makes a larger permanent cavity - that is, it cuts more stuff, disables more bones, nerves, and arteries.  Hunters tend to realize that arrows are, in fact, more lethal than all but the most extreme of high-velocity rifle rounds.  (Somewhere about hollow-point ammo for .270 Winchester, rifle damage starts to seriously exceed a good arrow with a sharp broadhead ... but the arrow will reliably out-perform all handguns and most light rifles for damage.  Assuming, of course, that you can hit your target with a bow.)  And for the record, pretty much all arrows used in war are broadheads, and will cause serious internal damage - arrow wounds from practice arrows happen in fights between kids at summer camp.

But using M&B numbers ... if a bow (and arrow combination) had a baseline (before power-draw and other bonus) damage of 50 (a pretty average showing in RCM bow numbers), against a person with 45 hit points and zero armor (absolute minimum), odds are it will take at least two arrows to the torso to stop him.  As bow power goes up, the cutting power of arrowheads does increase (a blade hitting faster is more likely to cut arteries and nerves that would be brushed aside by a slower impact, and much more likely to cut or shatter bone), and the ratio of debilitating hits increases slightly.  That's pretty accurate, in that it is possible for a scary-looking hit to do little to stop the target, but equally that few care to take an arrow and keep fighting.  Compare to Native numbers, where three arrows to the chest was minimum to stop anything, under same baseline damage and zero armor conditions... i.e. "I don't need my liver, I have hit points!"  If, however, baseline damage was raised just a few more points, it would go unrealistic the other way (especially on the higher PD bows), getting the Hollywood effect where anybody who gets shot with anything immediately falls down dramatically.  It's a tough balancing act to do, and it sure took some math to work it out the first time.

Also note that all RCM numbers are based on "debilitating" wound factors.  "Fatal" wounding, for M&B purposes, is a product of the "surgery" skill ... that is, how many of the casualties survive due to medical care.  This was, of course, the more difficult approach - fatal wounding statistics are easy enough to get, but data on wounds that disable requires a bit more research.  However, it does impact the calculation considerably.

---------------
Going to be kind-of busy for the rest of today, not expecting a lot of progress.  Should have a couple of hours to work on it, here and there.  I really wish somebody had sent me this file two weeks before the first release, so I wouldn't be doing this under pressure while the whole world watched.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: MrGrendel on November 10, 2011, 06:32:42 PM
Going to be kind-of busy for the rest of today, not expecting a lot of progress.  Should have a couple of hours to work on it, here and there.  I really wish somebody had sent me this file two weeks before the first release, so I wouldn't be doing this under pressure while the whole world watched.

Meh. I'm sure nearly everyone on this forum has plenty of patience, hehe. No rush, bro. That having been said, I'm pretty stoked about this. The mod alone is already pretty amazing, RCM on top of this is going to be incredible.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Oyclo on November 10, 2011, 07:51:55 PM
I just had a thought, perhaps a good one perhaps not.

The stronger bows are more inaccurate, which is bad in vanilla MB.
The game has archers hard coded to shoot at man height which causes a problem with orcs in TLD.

Might that inaccuracy of the stronger bows the elfs use add a random element to the fire which makes the skeleton issue less of a problem?

What I'm saying is might bows be LESS effective due to engine limitations if they were more accurate and 'missing' due to the smaller orc skeletons?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Ron Losey on November 11, 2011, 03:49:04 AM
Is it me, or should the "oddities concerning special effects with the darn wargs" discussion have its own thread?  I mean, that's a completely different aspect of programming, and one that I neither have any influence over nor the ability to work even if I was on that part of the project.
done. split general stuff about damage models into another topic. This one is for RCM things

Just a thought, before this thread becomes the "anything and everything that the game engine does or doesn't do" thread ... which would surely clutter up our ability to get the damage model working, especially just as soon as we have something to test and this space becomes cluttered with bug reports as well.

I mean ... can somebody please sort this out.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Conners on November 11, 2011, 06:28:12 AM
Note that we don't want to depend on RCM becoming a sole version. As much as some people would love it, not all of them will, and it's best if we keep Native-inspired item stats as the default version.

Please don't discourage people from posting item stats problems, we do need that feedback.
You're always going to have someone who doesn't like the way the numbers are, sadly :-/. Can only aim for the most popular option. No, there exists a more broad approach.

Wouldn't it be easier to tweak RCM stats into Native ones? Ron's going to have to balance the factions anway, so you should have a working base-line from there. Turning them into native stats would probably mean decreasing all damage and armour by 50%,  tweaking the couched-lance modifier and armour soak modifiers, then tweaking from there based on any occurring problems (which there will be less of).
Otherwise, it's a matter of looking at a hundred different reports, and trying to change everything while doing a balancing act so you don't unbalance stuff while trying to fix it (not a fun chore...).
There will be Native-based model (that we, developers, would balance), and there will be separate RCM model. Everyone can choose what he prefers. That's how things were in TLD, and that's how things will be in future millenia to come
Green text is GetAssista. Had hoped there had been an agreement of some kind, over PM or the like :-/... suppose not.

There is an agreement. At least it always was like this, and no other options were ever discussed:
RCM is a submod, not the sole version of the combat damage model for the TLD.
We, the dev team, will certainly keep in touch with Ron about any future critical changes (like e.g. new items) that can mess up his finely tuned set of stats. We certainly believe in him being able to deliver player a unique combat experience, which is diffferent from vanilla and in many aspects closer to reality. But we also have our own vision of things, and certainly want to retain the ability of using and tweaking our own system, which will be closer to vanilla MB behaviour.
Preferences vary, and best of all worlds here is to have both models available.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model
Post by: Northcott on November 11, 2011, 10:28:56 AM
I just had a thought, perhaps a good one perhaps not.

The stronger bows are more inaccurate, which is bad in vanilla MB.
The game has archers hard coded to shoot at man height which causes a problem with orcs in TLD.

Might that inaccuracy of the stronger bows the elfs use add a random element to the fire which makes the skeleton issue less of a problem?

What I'm saying is might bows be LESS effective due to engine limitations if they were more accurate and 'missing' due to the smaller orc skeletons?

If the inaccuracy is caused by the raw damage numbers, then the elf bows aren't so bad off -- they're in line with mid-tier M&B vanilla bows. 23-25 pierce.  The other bows are another story entirely, using jacked damage but done as cutting instead of piercing.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 11, 2011, 06:34:41 PM
The Elf bows being set to pierce is not really a workable solution, unless you wish to imply that elves only use anti-armor arrowheads with non-sharp edges.  (Historically, some European crossbow bolts did this, using conical or square cross-section tips mostly so they would lay on the launching rail correctly, but it would be a really odd thing to do with long arrows.)  That situation won't be coming back.  Elf bows can be stronger without having to be really strange.

And even the Native bows are highly inaccurate, compared to what even a relative novice can do with a real bow.  While low projectile speeds limit the effectiveness of archery at longer ranges, for the first 30 paces or so, virtually anybody can put arrows on a human size target if it doesn't move.  This means that charging a block of archers could get really messy for that last few seconds before you reached their lines, just like charging a machine gun emplacement.

--------------------------------

Other point:
If the devs plan to offer a different damage model, then you guys had better develop it.  Because the numbers I saw when starting on this are completely unplayable, in any logical sense.  Swords that would stab through the heaviest armor in the game, but wouldn't cut even pretty light stuff on a swing.  Axes that do nothing.  Arrows that you can shoot somebody in the eye, without armor at point blank range, and not stop him.  Lances that, from horseback, would go through a brick wall.  Javelins that could be used to blow up a tank.  If you plan to offer a different model as an alternative, you're going to have to develop it... or just assign new random numbers to everything (even that would be an improvement) ... because what you have now is totally insane and random, and just looks dumb.  The "Fruit Loop Damage Model" (FLDM)... maybe the "Unplayable War Heuristic" ("UWH!"... pronounced like the sound you make when you barf, which was roughly the reaction I had).

I mean, if you have an alternative to offer as an option, fine (provided it does not interfere with game balance on this model) ... but if you have no viable alternative, you're either going to have to develop it or give up on the idea.


-------------------------------

Edit:
Now down into the orc stuff ... about half way on the total item file.  All the Gondor and various elf faction gear is likely a point or two off, one way or the other, to really make the point about quality of equipment and various races ... but the numbers should be playable.  Looks like the hope to have it done by the end of the week fell apart pretty much completely ... although admittedly, I'm starting to get a work-flow that lets me work with the larger number of items without so many delays, so it should be getting better.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 12, 2011, 01:49:05 AM
No worries. You're already half-way there, so it has been good progress.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 12, 2011, 04:37:13 AM
No worries. You're already half-way there, so it has been good progress.

Your definition of "good progress" is fairly liberal, there. 

The first-edition RCM stat conversion for Onin-no-Ran, 48 hours total, including the time it took me to learn to read Python code enough to make the changes.  Granted, it was pretty rough, but that was because the whole thing was experimental and none of us had any idea if it would work at all, much less if my preliminary calculations were accurate.  There was a good excuse for it being rough.

This one is just rough because I'm having trouble concentrating, can't always tell what the graphics are trying to portray, and since I didn't have any influence on the troops file, I don't always know how the primary dev team intended certain items to be deployed.  That's a bit of a different, and somewhat less inspirational, situation.

Still, good or otherwise, there has been progress.  But it's going to be a few days, even best-case scenario, and even if I put the first version up for review with little or no testing of my own.  (I guess I'll just swallow my pride in my work, and do that, for the sake of time expediency ... many eyes looking for bugs will go much faster than just me working on it.)  I wish I had the strength and mental focus to just sit down and do the whole thing straight through, like I did with that first edition ... but I just keep getting cross-eyed staring at pages of code, to the point that continuing would just be creating typos that have to be fixed later.

But I swear I'll make this work, or die trying....

Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 12, 2011, 04:49:34 AM
In my experience with modding, people doing any work at all was pretty astonishing. So yes, my views on progress are pretty liberal.


Glad to hear you're fired up for this, Ron :).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 12, 2011, 06:43:46 PM
Let me clarify a previous post - I was advised that it may have been taken wrong.

Some of the Dev team insist that alternative damage models be developed and provided as options.  I really do not oppose providing people with options, as long as it does not become a logistical and game balance nightmare (which it will, as surely as the sun rises in the east ... heed this warning... I've seen this before). 

I do, however, very strongly oppose the thought that one of the options is completely unplayable.  The current stats are not playable - there are too many extremes, there is no balance or sense of continuity whatsoever.  While it has been said that they need to be "balanced" - the balancing required to fix some of them would be an even more extreme change than just starting over.  Creating any sense of balance or continuity from that starting point would be an exercise in chasing your tail.

So, by all means, if any of you want to do a model based on stats from some version of Native, or some other standard (and are willing to deal with the logistics problems) ... go for it.  But do seriously take some time to develop it.  The current numbers are not just a model I don't care for - they're no model at all, stats all over the board, way too high and way too low to even be playable for any length of time (under any set of assumptions and regardless of the feel you prefer in your games).  And that really looks bad on TLD as a whole, and greatly degrades the amazing level of work that has gone into the rest of the project.  (It sort of gives the feel of building a really nice sports car, but forgetting to add steering, and so just plugging in the steering system from a tractor at the last minute.  The result is shiny, but you can't drive it for long.)  That is not the desired outcome... especially not for those who have put so much work into the rest of the project.

So I'll do this part ... eventually (it has sure been delayed a lot) ... but if another version is to exist, somebody still needs to build it.  Aside from my warnings about logistics and balance (which would, for the most part, not be my personal problem), I won't oppose an alternative being developed ... but I must, to maintain any sense of honesty, point out in the strongest possible terms that all alternatives must be playable and offer some degree of continuity, or else they are a detriment.  The numbers on the first release are clearly such a detriment, so much so that I don't think they can be balanced out even if some rather extreme changes are made.

Apologies to anyone who thought I was just being angry and insulting ... I'm not insulting anybody, personally (as I don't even know how the faulty numbers were arrived at), but I am pointing out that certain issues with the project may be insulting you behind your back.  I'm working on a fix, but if somebody wants a different fix ... well, they have to build it.


-----------------------------

Update:
Hope to get quite a bit done today and tomorrow.  There is yet hope that this thing will come together.

Tragically, "hope" doesn't really have any cash value.  So we'll see how it goes.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Xatham on November 12, 2011, 06:57:22 PM
Ron, I believe the problem in communication, is that to the uninformed player it's very possible to play the mod without really noticing something incredibly off about the item stats.

So when you say that the current item stats are "unplayable", it makes it sound like a hyperbole rather than a sound evaluation.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 12, 2011, 08:31:57 PM
Ron, I believe the problem in communication, is that to the uninformed player it's very possible to play the mod without really noticing something incredibly off about the item stats.

So when you say that the current item stats are "unplayable", it makes it sound like a hyperbole rather than a sound evaluation.

I literally mean "unplayable", in that certain statistics will cause such massive balance issues that the outcome of a confrontation will be nonsensical.  When an armored troll can absorb the damage from every melee weapon in the game, but a child could knock him down with a single javelin hit ... that is unplayable.  The result negates all of the economics and logistics involved in getting a troll.  Or axes that will not even dent armor of any level ... resulting in any units that use axes being completely combat ineffective.  Bows that will not stop un-armored troops, even if you hit them several times ... so naked guys can just run up and whack the archers with sticks (sticks that, incidentally, do much more damage than swords, once even very light armor is added to the formula).

That is "unplayable" ... it undermines the ability to build a force, since utterly illogical and counter-intuitive factors prevent players (or developers, in the case of AI parties) from building a coordinated force.  Economic considerations - a major part of the war calculation and party-building - are dismantled by freaky side-effects.  Even if players do not understand why it is illogical, they will quickly come to the conclusion that building up your force is impossible.  This frustration is very, very bad for TLD as a whole.

An utterly unrealistic damage model could be balanced to work with the economics and level gradations, and make a playable game.  It would likely not, in my assessment, create the immersion and intensity of a model that strives for a degree of believability, but that was not the issue I was addressing.  Suspension of disbelief, and player's sense of realism or knowledge of actual combat, are a literary style concern much more advanced and abstract than the issue at hand.  But the numbers that this TLD release started with - they're not just unrealistic or illogical, they're impossible to balance or use.

So no, this was not hyperbole at all.  It was not even the slightest exaggeration.  If anyone on the dev team wants to provide an alternative damage model, they're going to have to develop it ... right now, the numbers are nothing.  They are, in the most accurate definition of the word, "unplayable".  This is, in a word, harmful to the tremendous effort that has been put into TLD (and I am not talking about the relatively simple part that I am adding ... I mean the tremendous effort that several have made).

I am fully confident that, if anyone on the dev team really feels that an alternative model is needed, that they can probably build it and make it playable.  (I do have full confidence in their abilities, even if I express severe concerns about the current state of the work.)  But when suggestions were forwarded that the unplayable one be offered as an alternative ... that hit me wrong.

Playable alternatives, even if I don't care for them - fine, go for it.   Unplayable ones - those are an insult to the work that has already been done, and undermine the potential of the whole project.  I don't want to see anyone on the TLD team just shoot their project in the foot like that.  (And I say "their project" - even if we figure that I am writing the sole combat damage model, that's not enough work to claim being a major contributor.  I'm not trying to take over anything... just doing the part I agreed to do way back when AW released the .808 version.)

"Unplayable" was the right word, and specifically the point of concern.  It was not meant as an insult, specifically or against any particular person, but as an alarm that needed to be raised before something really detrimental happened.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: MrGrendel on November 12, 2011, 08:45:36 PM
Ron, you probably have a lot more experience with balance and realistic numbers than most people and see certain issues much more quickly. I think some team members have also already stated a few times they know there are issues with balance, and they're working on it.

I'm confident these things will be sorted out, maybe at a slower pace... and if it isn't, your work will quite likely become standard either officially or unofficially. :P
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 12, 2011, 09:43:45 PM
Let me make one point, for the record, in case there has been some confusion:

My original purpose for becoming involved in M&B modding, and developing the whole system that eventually became known as the "Realistic Combat Model", was a hope that more realism in entertainment would have some impact on more serious issues.  If it stops one kid from getting killed because he figures he can take a couple of hits from a small knife, or prevents some drivel from moving straight from a D&D manual into a history book, then the effort has paid for itself.

However, since M&B has been picked up by a major publisher, and since for various reasons the mod community (with the notable exception of TLD) is slowly but surely falling apart, it seems that the objective of having any serious impact on anybody is not panning out.

Personally, developing these things is a tremendous strain on me.  It involves a great deal of time imagining and analyzing things that I seriously wish I could forget.  It's weeks of nightmares, no matter how you figure it.

So, unless something seriously changes, this will probably be my last M&B mod project.  I'm only staying around to do this one because I promised a lot of people that I would.  Once these numbers are together, I likely won't ever put more than a few minutes into M&B again.

----------------

That said, if I say something won't work ... I'm not pushing for some personal brand or trying to get my name in the credits.  I'm saying this because I feel bad for people who did work hard to make something what it is, only to see it shot down by some extremely clumsy act of dumbness.  If any of this is offensive to anyone ... tough.  And if you don't like the way I said it ... well, you are too thin-skinned.  But I'm not in much of a mood to be diplomatic right now.

--------------------
This is not any kind of a formal "I quit" announcement.  Things might change, and even if they don't, I'll probably check in occasionally to see if they might have changed.  But it is to make sure that nobody mis-reads what I'm saying, or gets the impression that I'm trying to make some aggressive move to get my name in the credits.  Once I build this set of numbers, as I promised to do, I have absolutely no ambition to keep pushing for changes in the project (or any other M&B project).  So don't anybody get the wrong idea.


-----------------

All of that said, I WILL finish this particular RCM conversion.  I said I would ... and I will honor that promise, even if it kills me.  And that is not hyperbole or exaggeration - I mean exactly what I said.  Despite a major injury to my person (multiple broken ribs ... a little accident), which is making it very hard to concentrate, and despite the nightmares and stress that come with trying to develop a realistic feel to combat (something I wish I never had to feel again), and despite other real-life setbacks (in case anyone was wondering, that teaching assistant was still alive at last check, but no useful details on the cause of the incident), I will finish this... or literally die trying.

But once it's done, 100% completed and tested as promised ... I'm out of here.  What you do with it beyond that point is not my problem.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Barf on November 13, 2011, 12:30:52 AM
*puts D&D manual, history book and calligraphy pen to the side for a moment* Sounds like someone is having a case of the mondaaayyys!...Yeah, I am an asshole.

I think you got to experience some of the hyper-critical fanaticism that comes with working on anything as prolific as Tolkein's masterpiece, which the mod group has been enduring for some time.
I am a little surprised as to what your goal is, which I previously assumed was to make the game more fun, I don't even really understand how a realism mod is supposed to make the world a better place, (it does sounds a little pretentious, no?). That said, I have been agreeing with most of your statements silently (except for maybe how squishy you make people sound  :)), and continue looking forward to this sub-mod.

From your personal bestest internet friend, Barf
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: grubald on November 13, 2011, 01:32:17 AM
I'm glad Ron's posted his firm commitment to finishing RCM for TLD, because I was going to feel bad about being critical and possibly incurring flak from his admirers otherwise. First things first: 

1. I agree with Ron that it is probably best to pick RCM as the "base" model to work balancing of troop types, equipment, etc. if *only* because a more consistent, logical scheme ought to make balancing itself more consistent and logical. It also seems to be the case that RCM is, objectively speaking, the funner (and more educational) model to play.

2. It's very cool that Ron, like the other devs, is sparing time from his real life to contribute his expertise and passion to this project. Much respect.

With that said, Ron, I think you need to rein in your self-esteem a little. From the glowing reviews of your own work to your open disdain for existing efforts, you come off, at least in this thread, like a primadonna. It IS possible to offer informed opinions without being a dick.

As a case in point, TLD 3.0 has been downloaded (and presumably played) over 10,000 times in the last week. It would have become pretty obvious pretty quickly if the game was "unplayable" due to the item stats. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Insisting otherwise is dickish, no matter how firm your convictions.

It seems clear to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you are a combat geek. Reading this thread and a quick Google reveals that you shoot arrows through car doors, wear weapons at all times, and wonder about the damage models of Star Trek. I'm not saying that being a geek is incompatible with your stories of real-life combat and trauma -- only that geeks can end up taking their corner of geekdom a bit too seriously.

Maybe? Possibly? Sorry to be a party pooper and add to your woes, I just have a habit of calling it like I see it.

Again, much respect for your voluntary contributions. And I admire your motivations. It was Operation Flashpoint that taught me that it was entirely likely that you would never see the dude that shot you dead from across a field the moment you broke cover. Life. Death. Tough titty.

Cheers,

Ben
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 13, 2011, 01:43:44 AM
Wow, that's weird... never seen two posts gets mixed up between users like that before. Let me fix that.

Yes, I am an asshole.
Please stop acting like a "primadonna" :D.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 13, 2011, 02:08:33 AM
Barf:
Erm ... thanks for that, sort of....

Most of the guys here have heard this before.  I almost had to quit when working on ONR, a couple of years back, because it was getting to me.  This is not new, and it's not even Monday.

As for making the world a better place ... would anyone prefer I make the world a WORSE place?  I really am capable of doing exactly that.  Maybe not in a large degree (unless I decided to plan a political assassination or some such ... which would be too much work), but I could sure ruin a few people's day in a hurry.  (I do know a lot about homicide ... I could be a very effective mass-murderer, if I just snap....)  Seriously, if you do anything at all, if you accomplish more than just having mass and occupying space (the definition of "matter"), then you will be making things either better or worse, to some small degree.  It's not pretentious - it's just being aware of one's impact upon his surroundings.  Infants and animals have no such understanding, but it is assumed that adult humans are at least aware of this fact ... although few seem to really take this point into account in their normal decision-making process.

The TLD team is certainly aware of this.  They have gone to great lengths to bring a classic work of literature to life, with great attention to detail from the original work, not just because it would make a game, but because they saw social and cultural value in the work of literature (whether they say this directly or not).  That's why it hit me so wrong when a series of small but critical mistakes did so much to harm that effort ... and subsequently struck me as even more absurd when certain people suggested actually encouraging these mistakes.  But that was not the core of the problem for me ... that's just why my facade of maintaining a decent attitude is wearing thin.

The real issue is that the cost of having this impact is seriously starting to exceed the benefits.  This is why I wasn't putting any serious time into M&B modding for the last year or so.  So I will finish this project, because I said I would ... but when it comes time for the next version, somebody else is going to have to take over.  That's just all there is to it.

(And for the record, if you want to see how squishy people are, whack one real hard with a ball-peen hammer, and see if that doesn't render him military casualty.  Or drag a little pocket knife across one.  People can take a lot, as long as you're talking about abuse from fists, falling down the stairs, or other routine stuff... but you'll be surprised at just how little damage a human body can take when weapons are involved - especially purpose-built weapons, not improvised stuff.  Whacking them on the knuckles with a ruler is one thing - hitting them with a flanged mace or a camp hatchet is something else.  Confusing that point does get people killed... in most cases, it gets them killed needlessly, as it could have been easily avoided had they realized the danger.)

------------------------

Grubald:
Very few people who encounter me in real life ever realize what I have seen.  I do study ancient and modern (and fictional) combat, as a historian and anthropologist (not specifically a "geek"... I teach college, it's part of my job to understand this stuff).  I am constantly armed because I've had too many lunatics try to get violent around me - usually attempts at armed robbery by people who I have never seen before, who just scope me and get the wrong impression that I might be an easy mark.  (I really wish that would stop happening ... it sucks when that happens.)  These things have come together to create a body of knowledge that, to acquire without having experienced some of it, would require one to be an absolute addict of the subject.  I got a lot of it in ways that were less fun.

On these threads, I have talked a lot about things that few people elsewhere know about me... because it was both educational and pertinent here.  But where the classic image of a "combat geek" is somebody who really likes the subject, I would be very happy if I could convince a lot of people that it's a bad idea ... that violence and deadly force, while tragically necessary at times, is best avoided when possible.

Call that what you like ... still, I can't personally take much more of this.  It has nothing to do with anything anybody else said ... just building the model is putting me in a place that I can't stand to be.  I would have quit already, but I promised people I would do this for TLD ... which I didn't realize would be as trying as it has so far proved to be.

-------------------------

Update:
Bogged down in some of the orc weapons.  Having a little trouble finding things to compare certain ones to, and guessing a lot about things like weight and construction of blades and polearm heads.  (If I guess badly, I suppose we can change it later.)  The orc armors went pretty fast, all considered.  Still gaining, but still slow... much slower than I had hoped.

There's still the dwarves, and a dozen minor factions, some with really exotic-looking hardware ... even after I finish up all the orcs.  This is really starting to take too long.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: grubald on November 13, 2011, 02:28:38 AM
PM'd Ron.

@ Conners: Clever, but thin.

Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 13, 2011, 02:43:44 AM
PM'd Ron.

@ Conners: Clever, but thin.
Ron has a lot on his plate already. Please don't antagonize him.

Thanks.


@Ron: Will be sad to have you go, Ron. If I ever manage to finish creating a game, I'll try to model the combat after the RCM (might help a couple of people not to get killed).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Xatham on November 13, 2011, 03:01:10 AM
What Connors said, seriously.

Sounds like it's getting there, Ron. :)

I have a question, if the RCM is taking such a toll on you, would it not help to work on it at a more leisurely pace?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on November 13, 2011, 03:26:20 AM
As I understand, the main problem is that some of the devs want to have a less deadly realistic and more RPG-like damage system alongside the RCM. As Ron says, such a system would probably have to be created and balanced anew, or the current system would have to be tweaked heavily, both processes quite labor-intensive. Wouldn't it be easier to base a new system on the RCM, when the latter is ready and tested? That way the developer can just tweak an already well thought out RCM - adjust HP/armor/damage multipliers/whatever to make it somewhat less deadly - thus creating an alternative  RPG-like damage system, while more or less retaining the consistency, logic and realistic approach of RCM. Of course, the new system would be less realistic and logical - but any RPG-like damage system is like that by definition. And this would be much-much easier to create and balance, then starting from a scratch or from the current system.

Anyway, these are just my five cents. I'm very sorry if this proposal is offensive to anyone, I sure don't mean it to be.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: The Yogi on November 13, 2011, 03:37:06 AM
As I understand, the main problem is that some of the devs want to have a less deadly realistic and more RPG-like damage system alongside the RCM. As Ron says, such a system would probably have to be created and balanced anew, or the current system would have to be tweaked heavily, both processes quite labor-intensive. Wouldn't it be easier to base a new system on the RCM, when the latter is ready and tested?

THIS

Seriously, whatever flavour we want a damage system to have, it has to be conistent and at least somewhat logical. Since RCM is the only damage model around that is all that, it would make sense to tweak it to desired performance for the "fantasyish" version, rather than beginning from scratch. You could probably go along way tweaking RCM just by playing with the .ini file.

As for me, I'm going with the harcore RCM.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: grubald on November 13, 2011, 03:42:31 AM
Ron has a lot on his plate already. Please don't antagonize him.

Thanks.


Grow a backbone.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 13, 2011, 04:24:28 AM
I will stand by the statement that the currently released stats are "unplayable".  They are such that the economic and developmental portions of the team-building will be unreliable and frustrating.  Gamers may not realize exactly what the problem is, but they will feel the frustration ... and soon.

On the assumption that these numbers were purely preliminary ... fine, you have to start somewhere.

On the idea that these numbers should be presented as an alternative and final (or even "needs some tweaking") package ... that is an insult to the tremendous work that has been done for TLD up to this point.  It is not an insult against me (it's really not my problem), but I must feel bad for those who have made major contributions, only to see them torpedoed at the last minute by a series of silly mistakes.  Mistakes that will frustrate players and devs alike, and generally degrade the whole TLD experience.

If somebody wants to build an alternative system, regardless of what assumptions go into it ... if it's playable at all and anybody wants it, fine, go for it.  It's not my problem.  Just make it playable.  If it's not playable, then the major contributors to the mod are the ones being insulted, not me (but I will still feel bad for them... and might say something really angry about it). 

I'm going to finish my part in this and hand it to somebody else.   As soon as it's 100% done, tested, and ready to deploy, my part in TLD is finished.

-------------------------------------

Xatham:  Would it be easier if I work slower?  No, not really.  It generally hurts less if I get this done as fast as possible, and then clear my head.

-----------------------------------

Rene Korda, and Yogi:  I figure that it doesn't matter what kind of alternatives are developed, if anybody wants them.  My issue was with the thought of releasing stats that were genuinely unplayable long-term, due to glaring flaws too large to be called bugs, which seriously degrade the overall experience.  I mean, Native stats are bizarre, but in their own bizarre way, they are somewhat balanced to a point that people can play the game.  The first-draft TLD numbers seemed to have come from several incompatible damage models, thrown together at random ... and that's just a mistake.  It wasn't "more" or "less" anything - the numbers were all over the board, some massively high and others massively low.  (The axes did nothing, but you could have hunted tanks with those javelins.)  Mistakes should be fixed, not encouraged.

---------------------------------------------------

But let's leave discussion of details of possible other models for a different thread.  If somebody wants to develop them, do it.  Just please do *develop* them, don't just throw something together.  OK?

---------------------------------
Personally, considering the setting that Tolkien developed and the graphics developed for TLD, I suspect that the model I am building will come out very balanced ... I figure that the primary concerns about playability will be rendered completely moot as soon as this is done.  I have no evidence for that statement, except for experience with other mods ... but it seems to be the case so far.  I hope so - it would make everybody's life easier if everybody can agree on a single set of stats for the game.

----------------------------------

Update:
Should have all the orcs pretty soon.  I really hope to have the first-round test version in a couple of days.  No telling, beyond that, how long it will take to find all of my various typos and stuff I missed.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 13, 2011, 06:23:54 AM
As I understand, the main problem is that some of the devs want to have a less deadly realistic and more RPG-like damage system alongside the RCM. As Ron says, such a system would probably have to be created and balanced anew, or the current system would have to be tweaked heavily, both processes quite labor-intensive. Wouldn't it be easier to base a new system on the RCM, when the latter is ready and tested?

THIS

Seriously, whatever flavour we want a damage system to have, it has to be conistent and at least somewhat logical. Since RCM is the only damage model around that is all that, it would make sense to tweak it to desired performance for the "fantasyish" version, rather than beginning from scratch. You could probably go along way tweaking RCM just by playing with the .ini file.

As for me, I'm going with the harcore RCM.
I third that suggestion!


Sorry that you've had to handle all this Q&A, Ron :-\. Looking forward to playing as an orc :green:.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 13, 2011, 07:50:08 AM
Update:

Orcs and Dunland done.  Dunland really drew the short straw, here ... they're stone-age kind of primitive, out there fighting with sharpened sticks and deer antlers.  Unless there's 300,000 of those guys, they're pretty much target practice for anybody who finds them.

The orcs may prove tougher than previously thought.  Not only do their heavier armors seem to be pretty formidable, but they have an excellent selection of anti-armor weapons - heavy polearms and axes that would tear maille to ribbons.  They're not the fastest or most elegant weapons in history ... but as previously mentioned, a lot of the weapons in TLD are huge, so really fast weapons are really not part of the picture anyway.  The better orc and uruk-hai troops may prove every bit a match for the best of any other faction, even if the bottom-tier orcs are effectively naked and fighting with bones and sticks like a herd of monkeys.  Sturdy armor to reduce the effectiveness of those pretty swords, combined with heavy axes and halberds to tear through that shiny Gondor maille and knock down those war horses, combined with a large advantage in numbers to make an overt charge feasible - a lethal combination.

I'm somewhat reminded of that web comic, "the DM of the Rings" ... using the movie scene from the assault on the black gate, when the free men just let an endless army of orcs completely surround them ... "Now attack!"... "You suck, Aragorn!"

Now I'm staring at the Rohan stats ... another technical nightmare.  Their armor is complex as heck.  Trying to estimate its protective properties from appearance is something akin to a shot in the dark.

Still hope to have this together before mid-week, at least enough for first-round test.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Barbudo Siniestro on November 13, 2011, 08:07:14 AM
Those changes sound great!

Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 13, 2011, 08:16:27 AM
I like it, too. Party composition might need more lower tier units to balance, but that's more interesting too. And when an elite band of uruk-hai attacked... you'd be worried :green:.

Seems Ron knows all the good web-comics :P.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Northcott on November 13, 2011, 09:22:30 AM
As the riders of Rohan were supposed to have mail and swords a) designed for cavalry use (longer swords being a must from horseback, of course), and b) have work no more advanced than other men (though with some quality gear provided through trade with Gondor), it would make sense for their armour to simply be rated as chain mail (or scale, in one case), with the more ornate or complex-looking sections supplemented with boiled leather.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 13, 2011, 10:17:20 AM
Northcott:

I can pretty much see what it's supposed to be.  It's just little things, like guessing at how heavy the maille or scales or whatever is supposed to be, or if the maille is continuous or just covering the parts not covered by the other armor.  I could throw some playable numbers at it pretty easily - but to really get a proper sense of player immersion, I have to be a little more careful.  It's that little extra attention to detail that makes the difference between average work and well-written fiction ... a point Tolkien knew all too well, as he developed entire languages just so his characters would have something to speak.  I really don't want to break that tradition by just throwing some random but playable stats at stuff... I want this done right.

Barbudo:

Not really changes.  I'm just putting numbers on stuff that is already in the mod.  Somebody else designed all this stuff.  Personally, I think they over-did it with the making Dunland primitive, but that was not my problem.  My problem is just getting the stats believable.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Barbudo Siniestro on November 13, 2011, 11:33:57 AM
Not really changes.  I'm just putting numbers on stuff that is already in the mod.  Somebody else designed all this stuff.  Personally, I think they over-did it with the making Dunland primitive, but that was not my problem.  My problem is just getting the stats believable.

What I mean with changes is that orc and uruk weapons will be more dangerous.  :)

If I'm not wrong, in the prevous version Dunlad warriors used quite primitive equipment, too. This was somewhat compensated by some primitive pikes (useful against rohirrim) and by increasing some of their atributes like Ironskin and Athletics. I think troop statistics or the weapons they have available is not what you are working in, but maybe some other member of the team could do something similar to make them playable.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 14, 2011, 07:15:46 AM
Update:

Mirkwood done.  Rohan done.  Harad mostly done.  That's more than two thirds.

Still have dwarves, Dale, and a couple of minor factions to go, and a few specialty items.

We're still on track to have a test version sometime mid week, if nothing else comes up.  Took twice as long as I initially estimated, but that's sort of how things go.

Then comes the great fun when everybody finds out how many typos, missed items, and just generally sloppy mistakes I made.  (That's what happens when you try to work fast.)  The plan is still to distribute this thing for testing with almost zero bug-hunting myself, in order to get the max number of eyes bug-hunting as soon as possible ... so expect the worst on that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 14, 2011, 07:35:17 AM
The progress seems pretty good to me, under the circumstances. Considering your physical condition, and the number of items TLD has. It also has a lot of items that are hard to label, unlike Onin no Ran or so-forth.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Xatham on November 15, 2011, 07:02:17 PM
I think I see what you mean, Ron. Playing as an Uruk Hai, I have the choice between a 19 damage bow with -1 damage arrows. Unarmored Dunlanders could take 4-5 of those before they dropped.

On the other hand, my 67 or so damage javelins (there are only two of them) would heavily damage the trolls. But I think that might be related to the fact that throwing weapons are inherently way less accurate than bows, so may be a balancing factor? Still, I see what you mean.

And then there's the good factions, with pajamas starting in the 20 armor or so, while the very best orc gear I could see for sale at Isengard is in the 15 armor or so.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 15, 2011, 07:51:55 PM
Jst amp up your Throwing and your Power Throw and you'll find the javelins very deadly indeed, I'd say.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 15, 2011, 10:34:41 PM
Xatham:

Exactly what I was talking about.  It's absurd.  It will, in relatively short time, prove unplayable - players will start to feel the frustration, even if they can't exactly put a finger on it.

As for balance with javelins, the advantage of a thrown weapon is that you don't have to take time to draw it, or face limited time while you can hold it drawn, like long bows (or crossbows, for that matter).  You can stand at rest and hold a javelin, and then go straight to throwing it with little lag time in-between.  Add to that an already high damage (due to size, mass, and cross-sectional density) plus a little bonus from power throw and skill, and they are very, very deadly for a few feet ... but they should not be so deadly that a child could heavily damage an armored troll the size of a large-ish dinosaur with one at 50 paces.  That goes way beyond the realistic advantages of the weapon, and into the realm of "shoulder-fired rocket".  (That might even be a stretch for a shoulder-fired rocket... it would have to be a good one to pack that kind of punch, not one of those cheap Romanian-made RPG-7 copies that were floating around a few years back.)

----------------------------------------------

Update:
Rhun done.  Dale done.  Reward items done.  Just Umbar and the dwarves left (although admittedly they have a lot of stuff, some hard to analyze).  Might get done today, tomorrow at latest.  I'll give the list one quick review, make sure it will run and not crash, and have it up for testing ASAP.  Everyone who plans to help test, put some time in your schedule ... it will likely be a heck of a testing project.  (I keep finding my own typos, just looking at the code, so I absolutely know there are bugs.)

Even beyond that, the numbers are kind of rough.  Individual weapons will probably need the stats tweaked slightly just because they "feel" a little off, or because of how they compare to others in the game.

But it's finally starting to look like the "Middle Earth Believable Combat Model" might get done eventually, like before elves start dying of old age.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 16, 2011, 12:07:06 AM
Ron I just want you to know I love you, in a non-weird sort of way.

Even though I'm sure you nerfed my mordor sword, aka lightsabre.  :o
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 16, 2011, 01:29:55 AM
The reward swords are still pretty horrifically vicious.  I took off the pierce-damage lightsaber effect, but the cut damage is high enough that I doubt anybody will be disappointed.  (They will still kill very reliably through a pretty heavy suit of maille, bring down horses in one good stroke, you get the idea.)  I doubt it's nerfed by enough to lose the effect ... the "whack", arms and legs here and there effect. 

The only real difference is not that the reward swords are that much weaker, but that many other weapons actually work.  You can't just get a good sword and declare yourself god of warfare, because you'll fool around and get an axe stuck in your head anyway.  Good tactics will do you a lot more good than a lightsaber would... and in reality, you may not need the lightsaber so badly after all, if smacking them with a decent mace will do the job.

Just keep things in a "non-weird" way ... I spend enough time being totally freaked out by my environment without things getting any weirder around this board.

---------------------------------

Update:
Almost got it.  Just a little more on the dwarves, and it's together.  Have to run a few errands, then go over everything once more and run it once to check for crashes, before I post it for testing ... but there's hope.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 16, 2011, 02:07:26 AM
YAY!! I hope to be among the first to download and test it :). As soon as you post the download, though, we ought to stop chatting and post ONLY to mention bugs, so as to keep everything neat.


EDIT: Remember people, that new characters start out with abysmal weapon skills--so weapons will seem VERY slow. I suggest, for testing purposes, you all turn Cheats on. That way, yo ucan level up your characters to test weapons properly, and you can give yourselves lots of money so as to buy weapons and armour. You can also make all enemy parties visible on the map this way, and teleport between them, to maximize testing speed.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 16, 2011, 04:41:29 AM
OK, everybody, showtime:

The Middle Earth Believable Combat Model for TLD - a custom RCM conversion
Alpha test release 1

http://www.wupload.com/file/2325784552/MEBCM-alpha1test.rar

Presented with almost no proofing, so expect the worst....   
But I did check - it will run, does not crash or anything like that.
And as promised - it is a lively combat sequence.

Just place the two files into the appropriate place in the TLD mod folder.  If you can't find the appropriate place, just look for the files with the same name and replace them.

Post bugs and related commentary here.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 16, 2011, 05:07:13 AM
With Isengard, I don't see any problems or errors. I tried fighting some DunlanderOutcasts, and it seems good. I had a 5 power-draw bow and 5 power-draw on my character. They died in one or two shots each (usually one shot).

One thing though, with that bow. It seems really accurate, even though it was 5 PD, and I only had 5 PD myself. My Archery skill was about 120. Does that seem right?

Back to testing.


Edit1: One bug I am noticing... When I equip orc armours as a uruk-hai, it complains, "this armour is inappropriate, you cannot wear it. IT will be removed into your inventory". However, the armour looks fine on the character model... and when I went into battle, it worked fine, and wasn't removed.

Is this due to RCM editing? Or is it a bug in the game itself?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 16, 2011, 05:26:12 AM
I have absolutely no idea how the skeleton/type-specific armors work.  I did not change any of that ... it's either a bug in the original code, or one introduced because there was a patch between when I started on this and when you got it.  The numbers for damage/protection/speed and occasionally price or weight were the only things I modified.  (Well, I fixed some text, and a few other things ... but nothing to do with the troop type specific armors.)

I have noticed an economic concern - it is just VERY hard to get started.  I started as an elf.  Loot drops on scout units are virtually zero, more often than not.  I mean, I would have happily scavenged some enemy weapons, if the game would let me ... or even gear from my own casualties (it was elf gear ... they won't be needing it).  Could not seem to get enough troops - a side effect of the new stats is that you may take casualties faster.  I suspect that, once the game progresses a bit, this would be cured by payment from your faction ... but that first little bit is a challenge... or possibly a side-effect.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 16, 2011, 05:46:32 AM
Hopefully one of the Devs will check it out and tell us.

I've noticed no errors so far. And I've been teleporting between places, looking at all the armour and weapons available on the evil side. It's possible some of the stats should be a few points higher or lower, but I'm not experienced enough to say. I did notice the Mordor Armour which is mail is just as good as the Heavy Isengard Armour, though. That is probably accurate--just that the latter one was made up of metal plates, so I figured it'd be tougher by another degree or two.

This seems pretty well ready for a release. Going to change the items txt and such back to FLDM, to see if the orc armour bug is persistent there.


EDIT: Checked it, it is the same even if I revert the items and module. So, it would appear to be a bug in the original game. That's good to know.

Going to play normally, now, and mention any oddities that pop up.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 16, 2011, 06:06:19 AM
GA just sent me a message on a little code detail that explains the armor glitch.  I'll go over the list and eliminate those before the next version.  Ignore additional problems there, or else note *exactly* which armor had the issue (and I'll check it specifically).

The Isengard orc armors ... and most of the others, as far as I can tell, are hardened leather plates (sometimes over maille or something else).  They're so dark and gritty-looking that it might be hard to tell, but I'm pretty sure that is what was termed cur-bouilli (French: "cooked leather"), that is, European-type hardened leather.  If those were, in fact, metal plates in that size and thickness, they would weigh 250 pounds.  The Mordor orc armors actually label the material as leather, but with the Isengard orcs it's pretty obvious as well.

That said, hardened leather is good armor material - the rating differences are mostly caused by coverage area (and secondarily by construction quality).  Armor that has exposed areas, i.e. chest protectors with nothing on the arms (or something very light), is statistically less likely to protect from whatever.  Even an incoming arrow, for example, is more likely to damage an arm before hitting the chest plate and stopping, even if the chest plate is utterly impenetrable.  When put against the randomizing factors in M&B's damage formula, this computational device works out pretty accurately.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 16, 2011, 06:08:20 AM
OK. With this post, I'll repeatedly edit it, to list all the armours I find that seem bugged.


Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 16, 2011, 06:15:54 AM
OK. With this post, I'll repeatedly edit it, to list all the armours I find that seem bugged.

Don't panic over it ... it's a simple trick, I can scan the Python file and catch most of them in 5 minutes.  Just, if you happen to notice one, make a footnote whenever, and I'll make sure I got it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 16, 2011, 06:20:53 AM
Ah, all right then. I'll wait till your patch, and then just note any you've missed out.


BTW: Are we worrying about Troop/Faction Balance? I mean, we are... but is it something you plan to work on? Just wondering (so I know who to bring balance issues on the grander scale of things to).


EDIT: Found a problem. The Uruk Hai Tracker Leather is more expensive than the Uruk Hai Leather Armour, but the latter one has a much higher armour bonus...
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 16, 2011, 07:43:12 AM
Roger that ...

I really didn't do anything with prices ... you may find a lot of mistakes there.  However, as noted, if any really crazy ones come up, I'll patch them as I go.

I really have no intention of releasing that orc-specific-armor fix immediately ... I'll wait and see how much other stuff comes up, and get several issues at once.

Balance in the overall sense, I can't do much about.  But if you just notice, for example, that similar armor for two different factions is rated very differently, or that one faction's swords are faster than another's ... do note that.  It might not be a balance issue - it might just be a typo, or a spot where I just blanked out and didn't change something or changed it too much.  (I was real tired when I did some of this, and as previously noted, I'm not feeling my best - for both physical and psychological reasons - so such mistakes can and do happen.)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 16, 2011, 07:56:31 AM
I'll try my best. Might take me a while to realize some of the typos, though.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Northcott on November 16, 2011, 07:57:04 AM
Downloaded. I've created an alternate TLD file to give this one a shot. Congrats on having finished the first draft. :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Meduion on November 16, 2011, 10:37:52 AM
Lorien Infantry Armor has stats of body +25, legs +10 and weight 12, while Lorien Heavy Infantry Armor has stats of body +55, legs +30, but its weight is still 12. Since it's more protective, while using the same model, I figure it should probably be heavier too?

Lorien Elite Armor has stats of body +65, legs +35 and weight 12, with a price of 3680. Lorien Royal Archer Armor has stats of body +70, legs +40, weight 12, but it only costs 2760.

The reward item Arathorn's Sword, only has a reach of 100 while the Greenwood Relic Blade has a reach of 120, however, the model of Arathorn's sword is actually much longer visually. This was a bug that was brought up for the standard version as well that the devs said they changed for the next release.

The starter bow for a Rivendell Elven character, the Bent Rivendell Bow, now has a power draw requirement of 5, however, this means that the starter character can't actually use it! Could you drop that item's Power Draw back down to 3, and similarly for the other Elven starter bows?

Would it also be possible to change the Rivendell bows and Galadhrim bows at least to being able to be used from horseback? Those are the bows that the Rivendell Knights and Noldorin Mounted Archers carry, and they use them from horseback just fine.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: k0d1akattack on November 16, 2011, 10:47:28 AM
Hey there.  Still not entirely sold on his project, I might prefer the more gamey to the more real, but despite my personal preferences I wanted to help out here... if just because I loved ONR and I am happy to see people putting work into a fantastic project like this.

The plain ole spear still has pierce damage for its thrust. 
As for crazy pricing, the light version of the rivendell armor that is 10/8 still costs the same as the models that are 55/30. 
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Northcott on November 16, 2011, 11:19:01 AM
The starter bow for a Rivendell Elven character, the Bent Rivendell Bow, now has a power draw requirement of 5, however, this means that the starter character can't actually use it! Could you drop that item's Power Draw back down to 3, and similarly for the other Elven starter bows?

This. It's not only affected the starting characters, but the troop tree in general. Many of the bows have now been altered so that the troops that spawn with them no longer have sufficient power draw. It might be better to restore the old values, and simply check the box that allows for 'strong' versions to end up in the shops.

Also, the Rohirrim now have warhorses that are inferior to those of the men of Dale. Significantly lower armour, yet with comparable speed, agility, health, and charge damage.  Adding to the problem is that the Rohirrim hunters are also far more fragile -- and given that they're a common troop horse, this leads to the riders being unhorsed very, very quickly.


For amusement sake, I highly recommend getting the Meara stallion. It now moves like a blur across the battlefield (so fast that it can be hard to aim a blow!), and the riding animation done that fast is hillarious. :D It's always been a beast, but now it's Hell on wheels. I took out an entire line of archers just by riding back and forth across them a couple times.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 16, 2011, 11:45:59 AM
I have noticed an economic concern - it is just VERY hard to get started.  I started as an elf.  Loot drops on scout units are virtually zero, more often than not.  I mean, I would have happily scavenged some enemy weapons, if the game would let me ... or even gear from my own casualties (it was elf gear ... they won't be needing it).  Could not seem to get enough troops - a side effect of the new stats is that you may take casualties faster.  I suspect that, once the game progresses a bit, this would be cured by payment from your faction ... but that first little bit is a challenge... or possibly a side-effect.

This is true without RCM too.  The first thing I do starting an elf is sell my boots to buy the cheapest horse I can.  Once you run a few of the solo quests you can do it snowballs pretty quick in terms of money.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Multiheaded on November 16, 2011, 01:39:54 PM
Thanks a whole lot, Ron! Your legend grows!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: k0d1akattack on November 16, 2011, 03:36:14 PM
Should the tower shields have lost their non-mounted status?  I could be wrong but I thought the basic design of a tower shield made it too unwieldy to effectively use on horseback.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 16, 2011, 05:10:59 PM
The basic Rivendell armor appeared to be cloth/padded something.  The next one up is maille.  Both have the same blue shirt on the outside.  The price and weight was the bug, and I'll get it.

Power draw stats are all screwed up - they were raised so that the game would take advantage of the full range of power draw values.  This means a lot of troops need work to match, but I don't have the troops files.  This was noted in the release notes.

The Meara were supposed to be crazy fast and such... they were some kind of big-time magic, like unicorns or something.  Just that when horses were fixed in general, it makes this a bit more noticeable.  Note that (with any horse) you don't always have to run your horse at full speed - this was an issue in Native, where the horses ran like they were underwater.   With a bit more realistic speeds, you might try dropping back to a trot so you won't go flying off a cliff.  Plus, it really is hard to take a swing at something while passing at 50 miles an hour (which is not unreasonable for a strong horse on relatively flat terrain).

I'll check on the Rohan horses, and the reward swords.  (Fixed the lengths on a bunch of them to match the models - must have missed one.)  Probably just those typos I was talking about. 

I didn't change any of the "use from horseback" flags on anything, yet.  (Bows, shields, whatever.)  Not sure who set them as they were, or why ... waiting to see what it does to balance before making a lot of dramatic changes there.  That was also in the release notes.

Read the release notes, people ... it will make it easier to test, if you know some of this stuff in advance.  (I know, it looks like a book ... but I wrote that all at once so I wouldn't have to type it 53 more times.)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Barf on November 16, 2011, 05:31:16 PM
General observation, snaga orcs generally don't die as easily as they probably should...watching my gondorian foot soldiers stab a single snaga 5x before it dies...fights between weaker units generally results in alot of grunting and fighting sound effects without alot of actual dying.

Using a dol amroth heavy sword it usually takes atleast 2 hits to kill a snaga unless I either get a headshot or I am up to speed on my horse...which is the same as it was in native.

Is there a reasoning behind the 0 damage stagger animation?.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 16, 2011, 06:13:53 PM
OK, everybody, showtime:

The Middle Earth Believable Combat Model for TLD - a custom RCM conversion
Alpha test release 1

http://www.wupload.com/file/2325784552/MEBCM-alpha1test.rar

Presented with almost no proofing, so expect the worst....   
But I did check - it will run, does not crash or anything like that.
And as promised - it is a lively combat sequence.

Just place the two files into the appropriate place in the TLD mod folder.  If you can't find the appropriate place, just look for the files with the same name and replace them.

Post bugs and related commentary here.

The DL site screwed up the DL for me somehow and is now making me wait 20 mins to DL it again.  If anyone could mirror that would be good :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: k0d1akattack on November 16, 2011, 06:21:33 PM
Ron,
Sorry if am just being dimwitted, but where are your release notes?  All that was in the download you linked was the mod.ini and item.txt.

As for the tower shield, I just confirmed that the Gondorian Tower shield IS unmounted only in standard TLD and is mounted/unmounted capable in your release so perhaps something got crossed up somewhere?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 16, 2011, 07:17:33 PM
General observation, snaga orcs generally don't die as easily as they probably should...watching my gondorian foot soldiers stab a single snaga 5x before it dies...fights between weaker units generally results in alot of grunting and fighting sound effects without alot of actual dying.

Using a dol amroth heavy sword it usually takes atleast 2 hits to kill a snaga unless I either get a headshot or I am up to speed on my horse...which is the same as it was in native.

Is there a reasoning behind the 0 damage stagger animation?.
Either the sword is bugged, or your PS is too low. I had 5 PS, and could kill Gondiron archers and scouts in one hit with a bastard sword (sometimes it took two hits).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Barf on November 16, 2011, 09:13:05 PM
It doesn't bother me terribly that I can't 1 shot them with my Dol amroth heavy sword, mainly that most of the troop battles resolve so much more slowly between the weaker troops...they can't kill eachother.

Powerstrike was 4, skill with 2hander was 204, not using a shield, I had forgot to mention that previously.
I have better weapons just shouldn't need them to murder snaga.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 16, 2011, 09:15:45 PM
Random observations.

Wargs are pretty weak now and I'd say no longer a threat currently, 45 armor on the armored warg, and 10 on the basic means that warg riders are way down on the food chain. 

Over all I'm liking the feel, the increased speed of mounts, and I was rather annoyed (in a good way) when my elf shield shattered.

Playing an orc, I find that in smaller fights where out outnumber I do as well to better in terms of casualties taken.  Playing vrs larger armies I find I get slaughtered due to a lack of 'rogue' warg support.

Playing my elf, I'm invincible.  Its just a massacre and they never get within a 100 yards of my lines.   I have a line of horse archers on one flank, archers in the front and the arrows blot out the sun. 

From a feel aspect.  I'm liking how damage is not chipping away usually but either a good hit or no hit.  My warhorse got oneshotted by an orc arrow to the head, something that would have barely made it flinch prior, but thats after a handful of zero damage hits. 

I'm not sure how trolls work, but Moria trolls have no body armor (they seem to only have feet and head armor), and watching a fight it didn't do so well vrs elf infantry. 

Balancing this is going to be tricky I can see.

Edit: I found an orc war group of 608 I fought with my 82 which were mostly elves with a smattering of Rohan skirmishers and Gondor infantry/rangers. (with zero tactics skill).  40 of my guys managed to kill 300 of theirs, my horse finally went down before I was taken down).  I had 46 troops left to its 305 for the next wave but I was wounded so didn't get to do that battle.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 16, 2011, 11:07:58 PM
Oops ... did the release notes not get in the download package?  Dammit ... they were supposed to be there.  Sorry about that ... I'll have to see what went wrong with WinRAR.  Next version will have them, for sure (but let's collect the bug list for just a bit longer first).

Can't post a mirror at the moment, because the internet server I am using is really bad ... most download sites are not working at all, and it took like ten minutes to upload that little bit of text on the only site that would work.  (Took two minutes to bring up this page of text too.)  Maybe somebody will fix this, eventually, but right now it's operating at carrier pigeon speeds.

The zero-damage stun effect is part of all RCM mods - it is deliberate, to represent the point that, even if a hit does not draw blood, the impact has some effect on the target.  No matter how much armor you wear, you can't really fight too well if somebody is beating on you with a stick.  It rattles you around to get hit, even if the attacker is wearing boxing gloves.  You can use this to your advantage as well, if you go up against really heavily armored troops.

In a scuffle, it's hard to judge killing power of a weapon.  Erratic movement means that hits are not uniform, like on a stationary target.  Also, M&B does a lot with basing damage on how far back you draw the weapon - a quick draw-cut doesn't stop much, while a blow that you can put your back into is another story.  Stab wounds are particularly hard to measure - if you don't have a lot of strength and skill behind the attack, jabbing somebody with the point of a blade is not a terribly reliable way to injure them.  (This is different from Native, where hacking something into lunch meat would not kill them, but a quick jab with any kind of a blade would just go through tons of armor.)  All of this is why most of the RCM numbers were confirmed on target dummies (the ones you find in the castles in Native), to avoid having to collect statistics forever and then filter out the solid hits from the ones with negative speed penalties and the like.  Really long weapons also have negative speed penalties if you strike too close to the hilt - an M&B engine issue, but it can work out in favor of the model.  Anyway, trouble knocking down a target in a particular number of strikes is a really complicated calculation to work out, unless you can get the target to stand still.

The Wargs are not as heavily armored as anything that wears metal, but they're still plenty tough, fast, and most of all dangerous on the offensive ... and they still attack without a rider ... so they don't have to be at the "top of the food chain" to be militarily effective.  They can still cause havoc among even pretty heavy infantry.  They're not supposed to be unstoppable ... and they are still enemies to be feared.

Really weak troops in TLD really are weak.  Ineffective, actually.  It creates some odd game balance issues.  Not my doing.  I also noticed that light infantry (like the wild orcs, particularly) tend to dance around a lot more than the slower-moving heavy counterparts ... making hitting and wounding them much more complicated (for both player and AI).  This is not entirely unreasonable ... inexperienced troops are more likely to scurry about, swing and miss, and generally cause more noise than damage, instead of doing something combat effective like their better counterparts would do.

I'll check the Dol Armoth heavy sword ... may be a bug.  Also the tower shield thing may have been in the patch ... I did not change it in the file I got, but that doesn't mean it is not a bug.


--------------------------
Edit:
Rohan warhorse was a bug.  Leather armor was correct, but accidentally got the numbers from the metal-armored Thengal Guard horse (next on the list).  Fixed.  Why Rohan's armored horse is a little light, I have no idea ... it wasn't my decision to give them leather armor when Gondor and others got maille on many of their heavy horse.

Some of the reward swords had incorrect lengths.  Fixed.

Rivendell recruit light archer "armor" (shirt?) weight and price fixed.

Raised warg charge value just a bit ... they were reading a little low.

Dol Amroth heavy sword is correct - on a solid hit, it should bring down just about anything.  If you were not getting those results, the issue is not the sword.

Trolls may be reading low on hit points.  (They need "hit points" - body mass really is their issue.)  I can't do anything about that - somebody with access to the troops file has to touch that up.  Then again, Moria trolls aren't supposed to charge a line of long bows ... that's a big target approaching relatively slowly, and so is going to get thoroughly perforated, unless those archers are busy dealing with something else.  The cave trolls don't have armor - that was in the graphics I was given to work with (although I did rate their skin as somewhat protective).

Elves with bows should be utterly wicked against a horde of orcs, particularly if it is a horde - a bunch of low-level poorly-equipped orcs, not a well-coordinated force.  Then again, I would expect the orc archers and skirmishers to be able to put up enough arrows and darts and such to occasionally get one of the elves.

That's most of the stuff that has been mentioned... I think.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Zbylut on November 17, 2011, 02:38:20 AM
Hi guys

Not sure if it's a proper topic, but anyway:
I've got a little problem, cause this submod isn't working with my M&B. I've downloaded the file, unpacked it, replaced files 'item_kinds1' and 'module' in TLD main folder (cause I haven't found any files named like those elsewhere) with those I've downloaded and nothing has changed. I mean the weapons and armours have exactly the same stats as before. I've tried few times. So I would be grateful if somebody could tell me what I'm doing wrong.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 17, 2011, 03:25:26 AM
Did you start up TLD with the ironlauncer?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Merlkir on November 17, 2011, 03:45:13 AM
Troll skin was more than "somewhat" protective. The scales were so tough that even Boromir couldn't hack through with his gondorian sword, it just bounced off. It took Sting (an elven blade) to stab a troll foot.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Zbylut on November 17, 2011, 03:50:04 AM
Yeah, I always start a game with IronLaucher. I've tried both ways to launch it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 17, 2011, 04:01:10 AM
So I guess troll skin is something more like mail armour?



Not sure what to do about it not working, sorry :-\. Someone else might work it out, hopefully. You can try restarting the computer, if it keeps not working.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 17, 2011, 04:23:33 AM
Yeah, I assigned troll skin to be "somewhat protective", on the order of a coat of heavy maille, plus or minus a bit.  (60 points, if I recall ... about the same as Gondor's heavy maille.)  You have to smack it pretty hard to get any damage through that at all.  I can turn it up some, but if we're not careful, it will get to the point where elven blades won't cut it either.

The big Mordor trolls actually wear armor, on top of being tough.  Damaging them at all is really a tough assignment.  I was shooting for making them about as formidable as I could make any living thing without it seeming absurd ... if they got up to the point of shrugging off hits from antitank guns, somebody would notice that things were getting a little strange.

Still, being used for target practice by an entire company of elven archers would probably do one in pretty fast.  It's a troll ... it's big and tough ... but it's not a titanium elemental.  (Reference to "The Order of the Stick", if anybody missed that one.)  You shouldn't need thermite to make a hole in one.

-------------------
Zbylut:  No idea what to say.  I'm not using the launcher, I set up a copy of M&B as TLD-only.  It works that way.  I have no idea exactly what that launcher does.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Xatham on November 17, 2011, 07:48:47 AM
Ron, I have

Uruk-Hai leather +32 body, +26 legs for 1000 gold and 10 pounds
Uruk-Hai Tracking Armor for +15 body, +7 legs for 1500 gold and 14 pounds

Might want to revise the prices. :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 17, 2011, 08:13:55 AM
I ninja'd you on that point, Xatham.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: MrGrendel on November 17, 2011, 08:33:03 AM
OK, everybody, showtime:

Gah, just now saw this, and I have to leave for the day. Curse you Skyrim, why did I have to play you last night. XD

Later, my precious... *strokes install file*
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 17, 2011, 09:17:48 AM
After playing Skyrim, you likely need a good-combat-gameplay fix.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 17, 2011, 09:29:45 AM
I did fix a couple of the uruk leather armor prices yesterday, but ... for the most part, prices were all over the board when I got the file, and for the most part, I did not change them.  I did check weapon lengths, for the most part (missed a few ... most fixed now), but not really armor weights (as figuring out exactly how much M&B slows you for heavy gear would be a whole new realism package).  We are catching a few of those, along ... (as noted on the uruk tracker armor) but I'm not considering them a massive priority.

Economics are a bigger issue, in general ... your low-level recruits take more casualties than they would in Native or some other damage model.  This means that cost can be an issue ... particularly with the elves, which is where I started a test game and have faced terrible economic pressure just to maintain a smallish scout team.  I'm seriously thinking that starting difficulty may be a bit steep - maybe if there were more chances to make money (resource points directly, or rank points that get you a salary) doing some more mundane work early on.  (Delivering messages was a good start, if you could get lucky and pick up enough mail going one direction without getting into a major bloodbath along the way.) 

This economic concern is not new ... we had to turn up the loot settings for Onin-no-Ran until it was literally dropping the equivalent of every single item that had been used in the battle plus any food and goods that the party might have been transporting, and it was still frustrating to keep the money coming in.  Players being unable to rely on shrugging off a few hits does immediately put more strain on the rest of your army, which in turn costs more, especially before you have a skill set in surgery and trainer (to keep those troops alive and gaining skills and equipment) and/or the best armor in the game (to extend the player's freedom to take chances, at least by a little).

And on a previous concern - I tried to take on one of those wild trolls.  It took more than a dozen elven bows (some scouts nearby, not actually my guys) to stop him, they must have hit the thing 40 times.  With the bow I was using, I couldn't even scratch it.  I would say they're pretty darn tough, even though that one didn't get far trying to advance against an absolute hail of arrows.  One troll is certainly worth at least a dozen humanoid-sized infantry (who would not have lasted any longer under that kind of fire).


Somebody referring to this project as "precious" makes me wonder if it will end up getting thrown into a volcano by some really short guys.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 17, 2011, 10:11:26 AM
I'm going to guess part of the balance problem will be the esthetic vrs the realism.

The choices in TLD in terms of the esthetics are very good, but when you then look at the character and think 'what sort of armor would that really be in battle?' it will weaken a character that wasn't suppose to be weak.

Its sort of the chain mail bikini syndrome.

Right now if this were final version of everything from what I've seen so far playing only Modor and Lothlorien. 

Elves low tier archer troops would start with a chain shirt and metal helmet shield ans short sword, this would be fitting for lore I think as well being they are going to war, just not hanging around being elf like.

Low tier orcs other than snaga would have chain and helmets once you hit the 'orc of' stage, all would have shields.

Orcs would have more skirmisher type troops with shield damaging heavy spears.

Noldor horse archers would be nerfed a bit in the horse department to a weaker mount.  Right now they are both awesome skirmishers and great heavy cavalry. 

I'm not sure what to do with warg riders.  Playing with them I found I could still use them as effective light cavalry, playing against them they were not even worth paying attention to.   Lore wise the rider should not be much more effective as a warrior, they should be smaller globlins riding.  Its their speed which should be their bonus but the AI never uses light cavalry well. 

On a side note, I do like the stun lock, a lot.  One thing you can't do in M&B is grapple and thats what I see the stun lock as.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on November 17, 2011, 10:43:21 AM
While I am far from being an expert in medieval weaponry, what meager knowledge I do possess of the matter really does not allow me to think of TLD as suffering from "chain mail bikini syndrome". The military equipment is at least verisimilar in this game.

Elves low tier archer troops would start with a chain shirt and metal helmet shield ans short sword, this would be fitting for lore I think as well being they are going to war, just not hanging around being elf like.

Low tier orcs other than snaga would have chain and helmets once you hit the 'orc of' stage, all would have shields.

You do realize you're talking about very expensive equipment, don't you? Chain shirt, metal helmet, shield - all this is quite costly to create and maintain for your average elven militia (and most of Lorien troops are, technically, militia, mobilized only at times of war). Especially so, if this militia only sees action once per 500 years or so. Now, an economy with very labor-unintensive food supply (which we might presume for Lothlorien) might be able, in theory, to afford this - but only "might", not "should". The current depiction is still more plausible.

The same reasoning can be applied to orcs - equipping each one with chainmail and metal helmets would entail huge costs with medieval technologies. Again, we know almost nothing about the economy of Mordor (only that the food production areas are situated around the Sea of Nurnen - and that, to be able to sustain Sauron's forces, they have tp be hugely productive, somewhere at industrial levels), so it might, in theory, be able to afford this -  but again, the current depiction is more plausible (and probably more playable).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 17, 2011, 10:52:21 AM
While I am far from being an expert in medieval weaponry, what meager knowledge I do possess of the matter really does not allow me to think of TLD as suffering from "chain mail bikini syndrome". The military equipment is at least verisimilar in this game.

Elves low tier archer troops would start with a chain shirt and metal helmet shield ans short sword, this would be fitting for lore I think as well being they are going to war, just not hanging around being elf like.

Low tier orcs other than snaga would have chain and helmets once you hit the 'orc of' stage, all would have shields.

You do realize you're talking about very expensive equipment, don't you? Chain shirt, metal helmet, shield - all this is quite costly to create and maintain for your average elven militia (and most of Lorien troops are, technically, militia, mobilized only at times of war). Especially so, if this militia only sees action once per 500 years or so. Now, an economy with very labor-unintensive food supply (which we might presume for Lothlorien) might be able, in theory, to afford this - but only "might", not "should". The current depiction is still more plausible.

I disagree.  Elves being very long lived would know how to take care of  (and make) long lasting equipment.  A 400 year old chain shirt would still work and really by Tolkien mythology it would be BETTER than a new one.  Elves have also been declining in numbers, if anything their should be plenty of equipment for them in times of war. 

Quote
The same reasoning can be applied to orcs - equipping each one with chainmail and metal helmets would entail huge costs with medieval technologies. Again, we know almost nothing about the economy of Mordor (only that the food production areas are situated around the Sea of Nurnen - and that, to be able to sustain Sauron's forces, they have tp be hugely productive, somewhere at industrial levels), so it might, in theory, be able to afford this -  but again, the current depiction is more plausible (and probably more playable).

Mordor is RICH, and we are talking course chain here, it would be inferior to elf.  Tolkien spent very little effort in making a believable economy (what do Moria orcs eat?), but there was never a sense of poverty or ill preparedness on the part of orc troops in terms of armor and weapons. 
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on November 17, 2011, 11:33:16 AM
I disagree.  Elves being very long lived would know how to take care of  (and make) long lasting equipment.  A 400 year old chain shirt would still work and really by Tolkien mythology it would be BETTER than a new one.  Elves have also been declining in numbers, if anything their should be plenty of equipment for them in times of war. 

Mordor is RICH, and we are talking course chain here, it would be inferior to elf.  Tolkien spent very little effort in making a believable economy (what do Moria orcs eat?), but there was never a sense of poverty or ill preparedness on the part of orc troops in terms of armor and weapons.

Lorien is an enclave protected by magic. When would be the last time its militia (and not the border guards, royal retinue and other more or less permanent troops, which are all appropriately equipped in the game) was mobilized? The War of the Last Alliance? They live in the wood, they don't seem to do much metalworking - keeping every citizen heavily armed is very costly in this environment. Tolkien is extremely vague on economic matters and the interpretations can be very different, but current elven equipment is very plausible and definitely cannot be compared to "armor-clad bikinis". From the historical point of view and taking into account the fact that Middle-Earth is very roughly technologically set in Late Dark Ages/Early Middle Ages, heavily armored militia seems less plausible then the current state of affairs.

I don't think a totally militarized non-monetary economy can be called "rich", but that's not the point. Chainmail is chainmail, its production is very labor-intensive and requires skill, you just can't make it otherwise. Again, Tolkien can be interpreted in many very different ways here, but, with the same reasoning as above, current orcish equipment is quite plausible, while equipping them all in chainmail would probably force to assume an industrial-age level of  productivity in the Mordor economy. Taking the setting into account, this doesn't sound that plausible.

My point is, interpretations can vary heavily, but there is nothing wrong with how Middle-Earth equipment is interpreted in TLD, this interpretation is pretty plausible and I don't think it can be labeled as unrealistic (implausible or non-verisimilar are probably better terms for a game).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 17, 2011, 11:37:36 AM
I just finished my 608 vrs 82 battle.

I lost...

450 evil killed wounded, to my 82 killed/wounded.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: k0d1akattack on November 17, 2011, 11:51:28 AM
Important Edit: Item price-check!  Dwarven pad over tunic is crazy expensive for being the rough equivalent of a puffy coat over a tshirt.



My thoughts on the matter of economy&equipment.

You must start by eschewing typical capitalist frameworks.  For Mordor: do they have the raw resources, one would assume at the very least they have access to vast amount of metal ore... might be garbage stuff but I'd take pot metal armor over imaginary armor if given the choice.  The other question is does Mordor have the labor force to produce the equipment.  Again, might be mass produced with poor quality assurance, but Mordor is never going to have problems with manpower.  Being rich or not has nothing to do with it when you have forced labor. 

For the elves, capitalist frameworks don't work since they live for friggen ever.  That means naturally all of their goods would be made to last as long as possible.  Assuming the equipment is superhumanly well made and stored properly it stands to reason that there is no reason an elf wouldn't be wearing at the very least a ring mail shirt.
It might make sense for the lowest tier to have on nothing more than a tunic since this could be considered the equivalent of showing up at a bar, saying there is a fight outside, and having a couple fools jump up to get involved.  The lowest tier elves are ones that just join with whatever they happen to be carrying.  Anything after that and they should at least have some protection.  From a gameplay standpoint it would be nice to keep them poorly armored as long as possible but it fails any sort of in-game logical coherence for them not to.  They have access to it, if I remember correctly it should have no tactical disadvantage (weighs next to nothing and isn't a jingle-jangle machine), and could realistically provide defense unlike... say those guys in the US civil war that tried to wear breastplates to stop the rifle rounds.

The best fix is going to be when the TLD team finds a way to cut down the number of elves... because any other nerfing is totally unrealistic.  I love discussion about the realism of a fantasy world  :shock:

Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 17, 2011, 01:03:59 PM
Ok I re fought my battle this time 361 orcs vrs my guys (82).  This is the result.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/267/elfc.jpg/

to

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/3/orcc.jpg/

361 of them, to 21 of mine, and of mine only 8 were killed.

So I wiped out two lords and a warparty at the ultimate cost of 8 guys.  Now this could even be argued as lore like, 80+ elves vrs 360 orcs, but in that case the spawn rate and party size would have to be increased and I don't know but I'd be willing to guess that would really mess with the autocalc battles.

Edit: Pre-RCM I've won battles that big but it always came down to the last few men, a goblin or two and a warg or two.  I think the major difference is the wargs die much faster.  Another thing is it seems the AI troops are MUCH more accurate but I don't know if the bow draw thing affects them like it does the player.

Edit 2: Ok I just got home from work an my weakened force of 62 was able to take out another 315 with 6 killed 11 wounded.  Elves are a wee bit too powerful compared evil in this version (enemy was 1/2 Khan 1/2 orc).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on November 17, 2011, 01:15:08 PM
What battlesize did you have? Whith the larger ones, the elves should get swarmed with these kind of odds. Plan to test this in a couple of hours.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 17, 2011, 01:42:31 PM
What battlesize did you have? Whith the larger ones, the elves should get swarmed with these kind of odds. Plan to test this in a couple of hours.

300 battle size.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: slyspy on November 17, 2011, 02:00:32 PM
I'd love to try this RCM (I enjoyed the previous versions) but that upload site won't let me download it. First it sends me to an error page which encourages me to buy an account and then it refuses to let me try again by saying that I'm only allowed to down load one file at a time. I'm not downloading anything!

Are there any mirrors?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: k0d1akattack on November 17, 2011, 02:18:06 PM
I threw the file up on media fire with the assumption that Ron is okay with this.

http://www.mediafire.com/?0ylr35jvbp5bsek
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 17, 2011, 10:33:23 PM
Playing for a few hours with a new Gondor character, is a very different experience than with the elves.  Here the lower tier Gondor armor gets shredded by orcs and orc archers.  My little band of 22 is about equal to a orc patrol of 8.
(http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/651/orced.jpg)

I don't know what I'm going to tell his wife and kids.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 17, 2011, 10:55:34 PM
Related to that, note that there is a tremendous difference between some mountain goblins with no gear and a patrol out of Mordor, whose orcs are equal to lower to mid level human troops of similar level.  On the extreme high end, Gondor will have some advantage in armor and weapons ... but not by much... and a significant advantage in heavy cav, to somewhat help offset the orcs having more troops in general.  It was in the books that Gondor could not have won the war by force of arms alone ... Mordor was, in any reasonable assessment, considerably stronger.

There isn't really any lower-tier armor in Gondor.  The recruits have little protection at all.  This is painfully realistic... professional standing armies might have time to build up their equipment, but when you try to quickly bolster their numbers with a bunch of conscripts, you sort of get what you pay for.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Mage246 on November 18, 2011, 01:58:55 AM
This is a semi-feudal society that is constantly dealing with threats from somewhere, so it's not unreasonable for them to have some basic armor stored up, and possibly each family having some stored weaponry and armor themselves from previous conflicts (although obviously not in the best repair for most).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on November 18, 2011, 02:32:00 AM
This is a semi-feudal society that is constantly dealing with threats from somewhere, so it's not unreasonable for them to have some basic armor stored up, and possibly each family having some stored weaponry and armor themselves from previous conflicts (although obviously not in the best repair for most).

While this can be a point of discussion for the Elves, it is not for a human society. You're wrong, in a Late Dark Ages/Early Medieval setting semi-feudal society equipping everyone with even basic metal armor is technologically unfeasible, stored or not stored. That was the case even during the High Middle Ages.

Yesterday I've had a large Gondor vs. Mordor (450 gondorians vs. ~650 orcs and haradrim) - I agree with Oyclo, the orcs are most certainly not inferior to gondorians and can easily face even their well-armored higher-level troops (and pepper them with arrows too, BTW). Actually, given the impressive looks of gondorian armor (I'm talking about the regular spearmen, swordsmen and such, all clad head to toe in mail and plates), it seems to be kind of week, it's quite easy to cut those guys down.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 18, 2011, 04:33:10 AM
I actually have to be careful not to over-rate maille armors.  They do look tough, all that metal head-to-toe.  However, tests by all kinds of re-enactment groups, European traditional martial arts people, and historians all pretty much confirm that while maille is tough, a hard hit with a heavy sword (or much worse, an axe) does tend to cut some maille.  While this damage is considerably less than what it would be without the armor, it is still equivalent of a horrible wound.

Say, for example, a solid sword blow that would cut a man in half.  Tests on meat, cutting dummies, and in some cases actual humans (citing some WW2 war crimes that were filmed and well documented, as examples, as well as the occasional crime with a machete or some such) all confirm that such damage is not only reasonable, but surprisingly easy to inflict.  Adding a coat of maille to the formula would turn that attack into what seems to be relatively minor damage - the blade will barely penetrate, leaving a cut two or three inches long and an inch or two deep.  However, that relatively minor damage would still be enough to be debilitating ... can you take a two-inch-deep cut across your upper arm?  I mean, ouch.  That's likely through the bone, and the major arteries ... the recipient of such an injury is surely down for the count, and without excellent medical care, will bleed to death in minutes.  That's not at all like getting whacked with a stick ... even the hit that barely penetrates is more awful than anything most people have ever seen, easily on par with the kind of damage you see from car crashes and high explosives.

So I have to be careful when rating armors, to remember that even hits that barely penetrate can still make big holes.  Armor is most useful for protecting from the less-than-solid hits, the ones that just touch the target but would still be massive wounds without the armor.  A lot of that kind of stuff goes around in melee (or a volley of arrows, for that matter), and anybody without decent armor will pick up serious and possibly debilitating wounds from stuff they never even saw coming.  But no body armor could ever be heavy enough to protect from all kinds of weapons, if you get hit solidly... it would weigh tons.  Even the heaviest armors are more to force the enemy to use heavier and less versatile weapons (and so make him generally inconvenienced and less effective), more than to completely protect the wearer.

All of that said, you're only noticing it here because troops (player and AI) can't just take a few hits and use their hit points as alternative armor.

--------------------------
On the other point:
No society can equip their entire army with high-end gear.  Maille was (and still is, honestly) hard to make, in the sense of being both material and labor intensive.  Likewise, decent swords require some work by somebody who knows what he is doing.  Expecting that kind of gear on conscripts would be absurd, no matter what budget a nation had, nor to what extent their economy was geared up for war.  Knights would have family-owned gear, but they would also be considered on-call active duty military at all times, so they would fall under the professional standing army category.  Anybody else who joined the guard would either have to bring some of their own stuff (England did a lot of that) or use whatever they had on-hand.

The modern equivalent would be ordering a military draft, and then trying to provide enough tanks and other armored vehicles that they could all ride to the war.  I mean, sure, there are some old tanks around that could be patched up and put back into service, to account for a few - and some in reserve units, militia and the like (whatever they call them in your locality).   You're still going to come up about a million vehicles short, even if your tank production numbers were staggering (see, for reference, the USSR in WW2).  No matter how you figure it, a bunch of those guys are going to end up as infantry ... they might get some trucks to take them to the front lines, if they're lucky.

That said, much like tanks and aircraft in WW2, many ancient and Middle Ages societies did produce staggering volumes of weapons and armor.  So it is not totally unreasonable to see quite a bit of the stuff in a battle ... just not standard issue on every recruit.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 18, 2011, 09:32:35 AM
I think part of the problem is how vanilla M&B treats upgrades.

There comes a point in every game where your men are MUCH better equipped than you are.  At times you grab their weapons/shield when they die as its an upgrade. 

So you start with everyone being scrubs, and for a few coins they are dressed like the best.  Really the level up should be automatic and skills only, the equipment should be what you pay for. 

I've seen mods try to work around this but ideally you could upgrade equipment at any time for a cost.  Thats the problem I'm having with Gondor as a newbie is that all my men outside of a few horsemen have basically shirts, thin leather, and padded armor. 

One interesting way around this which would not require a lot of code but troop tree modification, would be at recruitment having more options.  Instead of just 'Gondor levy' you would have three tiers of Gondor levy, each with the exact same skills but better equipment.  The level up tree skill wise would be the same, and the end troop would be the same.  This would make big economic decisions for the player too.  Do you hire a levy at 6 res or do you hire a levy with midlevel equipment for 100, or top level equipment for 300, knowing that they still have the 75 weapon skill (I'm guessing). 

Right now I feel like a bad man marching horribly equipped troops into enemy territory to be slaughtered by orcs, if I could upgrade their equipment I'd spend the cash.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Barf on November 18, 2011, 09:50:26 AM
That sounds cool Oyclo, a bit off-topic because I think that would be more up to the mod team than ron.
It would also triple the size of all the troop-trees, is there be any hard limits that would prevent that?.

@ron
I wonder if the tests were done with a gambeson underneath, for some reason all the ones I have seen ignore the fact gambeson's were usually combined with chain...I don't know, alot of the "scientific" tests I see are done improperly, like a viking shield clamped to a metal pole to simulate an arm being hit my a mace to test the durability, it pretty-much shattered but it shouldn't have been mounted on something with no give in the first place.

I appreciate you trying to get the best out of a system that doesn't have enough versatility to get the realism it sounds like you want, but at some point you have to step back and ask yourself if the changes cause more problems than they solve, because right now my character dances around like liberache when his plate deflects an arrow. My suggestion would be to change it so the stumble animation damage needs to be atleast 1, instead of 0 right now. 99% of melee attacks do atleast 1 damage anyway.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: GondorKnight on November 18, 2011, 09:53:45 AM
Maybe we can have a sort of 'Gondor Men-at-Arms' thing that start off as it is, and continue on the line, as if they were Footmen?
This could represent the 'professional' army of Gondor, while the lower grade Levy can really be levies.

So we have a line of Levy up to various troops, and Men-at-Arms line that go up to the max level (melee line only?)

@Barf: I believe that the troop trees wouldn't need rework- maybe just Levy and Watchman needs reowrk, expanding the tree from 2 to 6.
From the Watchman part, it can go back into the standard lines.
It's just these two starting unit have poor armour, IMO.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Mage246 on November 18, 2011, 10:04:01 AM
I never said high end gear, so I have no idea why both of you brought that up. But there's a big difference between going to war in high-end gear and going to war in your farming gear, anyway. Try to find a middle ground.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Merlkir on November 18, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
@ron
I wonder if the tests were done with a gambeson underneath, for some reason all the ones I have seen ignore the fact gambeson's were usually combined with chain...I don't know, alot of the "scientific" tests I see are done improperly, like a viking shield clamped to a metal pole to simulate an arm being hit my a mace to test the durability, it pretty-much shattered but it shouldn't have been mounted on something with no give in the first place.

Yes. Even a layered linen gambeson can stop most swords from cutting through, it's even surprisingly effective against stabs. With mail on top (riveted mail) there's no way you'll cut the guy.

There is still the impact though, you can shrug off most sword strikes, but yeah - an axe would stun you and most likely do some blunt force trauma.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on November 18, 2011, 10:37:38 AM
I've seen mods try to work around this but ideally you could upgrade equipment at any time for a cost.  Thats the problem I'm having with Gondor as a newbie is that all my men outside of a few horsemen have basically shirts, thin leather, and padded armor.
I never said high end gear, so I have no idea why both of you brought that up. But there's a big difference between going to war in high-end gear and going to war in your farming gear, anyway. Try to find a middle ground.

Shirts, leather and paddings mentioned in the first quote are exactly that middle ground - they are what the vast majority of troops were equipped in an era upon which the Middle-Earth (and, consequently, TLD) is based. By no means are they "farming gear" - they are normal military equipment of their age.

Oyclo's idea on paid upgrades to equipment is nice from the gameplay point of view, though I don't know if it's feasible to implement.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 18, 2011, 10:44:28 AM

Oyclo's idea on paid upgrades to equipment is nice from the gameplay point of view, though I don't know if it's feasible to implement.

If its done via the barracks it should be very easy, it just takes time to do it and I volunteered that in the suggestion thread.  If its done via script it would be better but I have no idea how feasible that would be in both time of the script writers and ability of the script. 
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 18, 2011, 01:08:06 PM
@ron
I wonder if the tests were done with a gambeson underneath, for some reason all the ones I have seen ignore the fact gambeson's were usually combined with chain...I don't know, alot of the "scientific" tests I see are done improperly, like a viking shield clamped to a metal pole to simulate an arm being hit my a mace to test the durability, it pretty-much shattered but it shouldn't have been mounted on something with no give in the first place.

Yes. Even a layered linen gambeson can stop most swords from cutting through, it's even surprisingly effective against stabs. With mail on top (riveted mail) there's no way you'll cut the guy.

There is still the impact though, you can shrug off most sword strikes, but yeah - an axe would stun you and most likely do some blunt force trauma.

Part of the problem is that outside of head/body/legs we don't have 'strike points'.  So yea a blow to the most protected part of the chest might be absorbed by the underpadding to a large extent, the same blow would knock a person out of the fight on the arm with a shattered bone or go through the necessarily thinner padding. 
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Wild Rover on November 18, 2011, 02:47:16 PM
Orcs and Dunland done.  Dunland really drew the short straw, here ... they're stone-age kind of primitive, out there fighting with sharpened sticks and deer antlers.  Unless there's 300,000 of those guys, they're pretty much target practice for anybody who finds them.

I haven`t actually tried RCM yet (computer issues), but, if you weakened already weak Dunlanders, I really doubt they will do anything at all against steel-clad riders of the Mark.

Besides, I don`t think they should be treated as such primitive tribes. They were barbarians, true, but if Freca, of dunnish blood, claimed to be a descendant of king Fréawine, Dunlanders had to have some kind nobility (A lord won`t marry a commoner). And nobility will not run around in boiled leather, furs and sharpened sticks.

Dunlanders of TLD time =|= Dunlanders in times of Wulf or Freca. Also, yes, nobility would run in leather and furs, if they had nothing better. In fact, the top tier troops and leaders sport mail and swords in TLD.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 18, 2011, 03:05:00 PM
Orcs and Dunland done.  Dunland really drew the short straw, here ... they're stone-age kind of primitive, out there fighting with sharpened sticks and deer antlers.  Unless there's 300,000 of those guys, they're pretty much target practice for anybody who finds them.

I haven`t actually tried RCM yet (computer issues), but, if you weakened already weak Dunlanders, I really doubt they will do anything at all against steel-clad riders of the Mark.

Besides, I don`t think they should be treated as such primitive tribes. They were barbarians, true, but if Freca, of dunnish blood, claimed to be a descendant of king Fréawine, Dunlanders had to have some kind nobility (A lord won`t marry a commoner). And nobility will not run around in boiled leather, furs and sharpened sticks.

Thats not really an RCM issue but a troop tree issue.  If you wanted to you could have the higher tiers wearing armor by editing. 
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: WaltF4 on November 18, 2011, 03:15:45 PM
The zero-damage stun effect is part of all RCM mods - it is deliberate, to represent the point that, even if a hit does not draw blood, the impact has some effect on the target.  No matter how much armor you wear, you can't really fight too well if somebody is beating on you with a stick.  It rattles you around to get hit, even if the attacker is wearing boxing gloves.  You can use this to your advantage as well, if you go up against really heavily armored troops.

On a side note, I do like the stun lock, a lot.  One thing you can't do in M&B is grapple and thats what I see the stun lock as.


Is there a way to increase the base damage of punching keep some sort of parity with the increased armor values?

One side effect of the general increase in both armor values and damage values is that punching an armored combatant does no damage, even if it staggers them. That particular issue had not occurred to me until I watched over 100 orcs fail to subdue a single Gondorian spearman with 30 minutes of constant punching (what you get when issuing “use blunt weapons” to troops with no blunt weapons) while trying to complete a capture prisoner quest. About half way through the beating, I attempted to speed up the process by striking the surrounded man twice with my sword for a combined damage of about 40. The man lived through both of my strikes and the remaining 15 minutes of punching before I gave up and just killed him. Again, this is a small complaint and one that I feel is not a major concern for game balance as even with fists doing significantly more damage than they do currently the lack of range and blocking would keep them from being threats. Mostly, it is very emersion breaking that a swarm of soldiers is completely incapable of pinning down a surrounded and hopelessly out numbered man unless one of the soldiers happens to have even a small stick, in which case they would beat the man senseless in seconds.

The only other issue I have found is that the negative quality modifiers for shields may be too large relative to the new baseline shield statistics. In particular, battered or cracked shields often have 1 durability.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on November 18, 2011, 03:21:53 PM
The Uruk-hai seem to be over-toughened. By the look of it, their armor is no tougher then the gondorian mail with plates, but they can take considerably more punishment. Is it, perhaps, due to hp/skills/etc.? If so, these will probably need to be changed. Currently, charging at them with rohirrim cavalry feels sort of like charging at the phalanx of 15-th century full plate-clad men-at-arms.

In my last battle, it took 5 dismounted riders a third of a minute of constant hitting to actually dispatch one large Uruk-hai.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 18, 2011, 06:34:00 PM
The Uruk-hai seem to be over-toughened. By the look of it, their armor is no tougher then the gondorian mail with plates, but they can take considerably more punishment. Is it, perhaps, due to hp/skills/etc.? If so, these will probably need to be changed. Currently, charging at them with rohirrim cavalry feels sort of like charging at the phalanx of 15-th century full plate-clad men-at-arms.

In my last battle, it took 5 dismounted riders a third of a minute of constant hitting to actually dispatch one large Uruk-hai.

I looked at it and Large Uruk-Hai use Uruk-Hai mail and leather which is a 50/30 and gauntlets of a value of 7, so yea they are pretty beefy.  The helmet is a 57 value.   It also has chain greaves which I think would give it a 45 leg armor value.

What level riders were they? 
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 18, 2011, 07:14:19 PM
Merlkir:  Exactly.  Even a blade that does not really cut through can inflict considerable blunt force trauma.

On weapon testing:  Yes, there are a lot of bad tests done, which produce a lot of aberrant results, both ways.  One of my favorite ones, recently, was very extensive but had two serious problems ... one, most of the swords in the tests were "replica", i.e. looked good but were never built with cutting in mind.  This meant that the few blades that were designed as blades (even poor blades) massively out-performed the replicas in cutting tests on cloth or leather.  (Against metal, the replicas made about as good a chisel as a real blade did.)  This produced some very odd conclusions, particularly since one of the blades that was actually hardened to take an edge happened to be a katana (enter the whole European vs. Japanese blades can of worms).  Second, the arrow tests were conducted with practice arrow tips - which are deliberately engineered to stop quickly in target backstops, particularly cloth or styrofoam.  That test massively over-rated cloth against arrows, and somewhat over-rated other armors, compared to what any hunter knows about sharp broadheads.  And that was one of the better tests I've seen.  They go downhill from there.  Fortunately, if you have a sharp eye for this sort of thing, you can sort out the issues, compare enough different tests and average out the results.  Even the poor test procedure tells you something - in that case, how really poorly designed arrowheads would do against armor.

On stun:  Getting hit hurts, even if it doesn't do any real "damage".  If you're getting beat up so badly that you can't do anything but be stunned, then you are losing a fight.

On fists:  Armor is generally tougher than skin.  Any armor at all will render most bare-hand attacks completely ineffective.  Punching somebody out rather depends on hitting something soft (say, the face), so that the target takes more damage than your fist.  Not to mention, have you ever seen anybody killed by being punched and kicked?  It's not easy to do.  Even gang stompings, where several guys knock somebody down and proceed to kick and stomp them into the ground, can take dozens of blows to incapacitate a mugging victim - zero armor, usually an accountant or some such (not a tough, generally damage-resistant sort).  Boxing matches go on long enough to be a spectator sport, and bare-knuckle matches are often not much faster.  Fist damage should be dismal ... that's why people started using weapons in the first place.

The impact of fists being marginal against armor is only an issue if you are trying to take prisoners - which is a pretty big problem.  Realistically, it can be hard to capture somebody alive, particularly if they would just as soon die here as whatever will happen to them as a prisoner.  Any weapon that is really effective is also usually deadly, at least without modern medical facilities, and using ineffective weapons (fists, small sticks, etc.) is a really good way to make somebody extremely angry.  This is reality - police face it all the time, where their use-of-force policies say that they can't do anything effective, but their target (even while unarmed - why they can't use more force) proves extremely hard to subdue.  Welcome to the fun world of realism.  Unless an entire group surrenders at once, taking prisoners is a tough prospect.

The damaged shields may only have 1 hit point, but they still have an armor value in the range of 60.  So that one hit point still requires the shield be hit pretty hard to damage it.  Plus, what did you expect from a broken shield?

The uruks have high strength and a bunch of hit points, to generally represent the point that they are scary beasts who live for nothing but war, and can shrug off a lot of pain and damage that would put a human into shock.  I did not have the files to modify that, but I can't disagree with the point.  Now, when you add considerable armor to that, yeah, they can get pretty formidable... particularly if nobody in the group has any decent anti-armor type weapons.  But that's not really a mistake ... it just makes the point that heavy armor can make a target more difficult to bring down than what you often see in Hollywood (where, often as not, the armor appears to be made of cardboard and tinfoil - both in how it looks and how it performs).

Don't think of it as charging men in plate armor.  Think of it as charging a whole herd of monsters, scary Halloween-looking critters with ink-black skin and fangs, atrocities bred for nothing but war and violence.  To kill them, you're going to have to totally beat them into the turf, because they will not just lay down and call for a medic if they get hurt.  Add effective weapons and armor to that, and they become quite formidable, as was very much intentional by their masters (who seriously believe they could win a war of epic scale using these guys as the front-line shock troops... and very well could be right).

The Dunland troops - the really high tier, nobility and the like, have slightly better gear.  Still nowhere near what anybody with some industry has, but slightly better.  Still, that was not my doing - I just put specs on what was there.

The equipment upgrade question - M&B does have a quite unreasonable system where equipment just grows on troops when they level up.  On a horde of mercenaries who were literally improving their status by scavenging, this might make sense, but not for army regulars.  We were planning to fix that in ONR, when Fujiwara got bogged down in Real Life (tm) and we couldn't finish it... it's a major re-organization to deal with - whole new troop trees, dialog with outfitters, a complicated mess to convert.

-----------------------

Update:
We're getting a lot of suggestions and the like, but not finding many new bugs.  (Found some text bugs myself, but I'll get those.)  So I figure I'll go over the file and get some of these issues, and put together a beta version for one more round of tests.  If the stats themselves are working, then we can send this to the primary mod team, and all of these other suggestions can go to them (as I don't have many of the files to modify some of this, even if I had both the ability and desire to do so).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 18, 2011, 08:16:45 PM
After having more testing time with the orcs, I think they are fine and don't need any upgrades.

The problem I think are the elves and most specifically what a player elf army can do with mounted archers.  The damage from the bows is just tremendous, and Noldor horse archers are both VERY heavy cavalry and VERY good skirmishers.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Meduion on November 18, 2011, 08:46:06 PM
It's really hard to make a comparison against the elves. On the one hand, I think that they should have the quality of arms, armour, and skill that they have. On the other hand, they do indeed mash opposing armies, at least the armies of Moria, Gundabad, Rhun, and Dunland. The story is a little bit different against Isengard, where if you don't have at least close to 1 - 2 odds some are going to get through and when those Uruks close they can do some real damage. I think changes to the elves need to be at the level of troop frequency, not at the armor level though. You need to have less troops and you need to have way fewer auxillary scout parties and what not spawning. Those mobile little scout parties swarm anything that comes into their area and helps to really stack the odds against the enemy. Those changes aren't in Ron's power though.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 18, 2011, 09:32:49 PM
Ok, guys, beta version:

http://www.wupload.com/file/2526575242/MEBCM-Beta1.rar

This should get the known errors (at least most of them) as of today, minus the serious economic concerns that are really beyond the scope of this project.

I still did not modify the "usable from horseback" flags on most items - that's a game balance issue more than what I care to play in at the moment.  Also have not really worked the item weights - as previously stated, recalculating how M&B handles encumbrance and developing a scale on item weights to match would be a whole new project.

Once again, everybody check for typos and bugs in the stuff I changed.  While suggestions and random discussion on the game can be a lot of fun (or not), it's not getting this project finished.  And personally, I don't have the time, energy, or mental or physical health to stay on this much longer ... so we're going to have to get it together ASAP, so I can give it to the mod leads.

Then you can throw all of your suggestions at them.  For the moment, however - bug reports go here.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: k0d1akattack on November 18, 2011, 11:54:49 PM
Ron,
The spear, just the simple plain spear, still has pierce damage for its thrust.  I don't know if you just missed when I mentioned it before or it is working as intended.

I am glad someone else thought of the Yumi and Yabusame.  That said, one of the faction rewards is a longbow style bow with a PD of 5 or 6 that can be used from horseback... so that strongly points to a gameplay balancing decision.

Personally I feel the velocity of throwing axes is too low, but I guess that is the kind of tweaking you want to let other people worry about.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 19, 2011, 01:26:37 AM
Which spear?  Which faction sold it?  Because I didn't find it ... well, I suppose I could check EVERY spear, but how long would that take?  They are all named "spear".

------------
The throwing axe velocity is not a joke.  You ever throw a hatchet?  Throwing a Cherokee tomahawk is still something people play around with, out where I came from ... and while it can be done, and more efficiently than you might think, lobbing one of those things for any distance is like trying to throw a bowling ball.  It's not really an effective attack, except for the point of extending your reach by a bit (which can work to your advantage, for a number of strange reasons).  The speed, arc of travel, and limits on effective range are accurate ... annoyingly so, it seems, if you favor them as a "ranged" weapon.

The lower speed on thrown weapons has the secondary advantage of getting the AI to get close enough to actually make them effective, instead of just hurling them all straight up into the sky from 50 yards out and wondering when and where they will come down.

Smaller and better balanced weapons, like the Roman-type military darts, will get a little better range - but even then, to make a single throw effective, you will need to get pretty close.  Attacks from more than 20 paces were done in volley against squad-sized targets, and even then it was considered extreme range.  Axes are a lot shorter ranged than that, much heavier and harder to throw.

Anyway, throw an axe at something, and watch.  They look like they fly in slow motion, and getting one to hit blade-first is pure guesswork.

----------
Personally, I think pretty much all the bows could be used from horse, with the possible penalties in how M&B handles horse archery pretty much compensating for the increase in difficulty when doing so.  But again, I'll leave that one to someone else, as a game balance issue, rather than start something.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 19, 2011, 01:57:28 AM
Maybe he means the dunlander spear, which is just a sharpened stick? Of course, for the weapon, it makes sense as pierce (like an ice-pick).


Looking forward to testing this some more.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 19, 2011, 02:28:13 AM
Some of the Dunland sharpened sticks are "pierce" and at very low values, as they really would produce little tissue damage.

But the spear in error was a Gondor spear, and it was a typo ... I finally found the darn thing.  Fixed for next version.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on November 19, 2011, 03:36:39 AM
What level riders were they?
One Brego guard (highest level lancer), three elites (second highest tier of troops), one regular rider (third tier).

The issue will definitely raise itself after RCM is finished and given to the devs, because of the balancing issues and (even if this is less important) because of such toughness in comparison to rohirrim directly contradicts what Tolkien has written. With current stats, Ugluk would have been hunting Eomer's men (and, most likely, succesfully), not vice versa.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 19, 2011, 08:25:38 AM
Jsut a balance note: The Isengard Urukhai heavy armour sucks terribly, ATM. It costs over 4K rsc, but has poor armour quality, and it weighs 25. Figured I'd mention, since it's an extremely bad case (not unhappy with it--this is to be expected for the beta).


Another possible bug that is starting to grate on me. Horses seem to have quite a bit more than 60 HP. I keep shooting them in the head and stuff, but they just keep on going just fine.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Meduion on November 19, 2011, 09:39:36 AM
Would somebody be able to mirror the download? That site says I'm only able to download 1 file at a time even though I'm not downloading any files from there right now. Cleared my caches and all, but same message.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 19, 2011, 10:15:02 AM
Horses run 60 to 90 HP ... a solid hit in the head from heavier weapons should bring them down (with the 2x head shot multiplier), if there's no armor to speak of.  A really solid hit to the body should put them down, again minus armor, but you'll really have to hit them - they're big animals, they can shrug off a little damage, at least long enough to finish the fight.

If the shot was just poorly done and the projectile shoddy - well, critters might take a hit in the head and not go down.  It does happen ... my dad watched a guy he was hunting with, hit a deer right through the middle of the head - ear to ear - with an arrow (with an almost two-inch wide broadhead, no less), and the stupid thing didn't go down.  Three of them chased it for hours, because for legal reasons in that particular wildlife management area, the guys with black powder rifles were restricted to buck only, and the deer with the joke arrow through it's head was a doe.  They finally did end up shooting it with the guns, because the guy with the bow couldn't hit crud - the head shot was literally an accident.  The game warden looked at them very suspiciously when they told the story, but he figured that poachers would not come to him and try to explain it, so he let it go.  That's not the only story like it that I've heard, but that one I know everybody in the story, and they all told the same story (with the same mix of humor, dismay, and a slightly queasy feeling), so I figure it's pretty accurate.

Seriously, the tissues of the brain are certainly more vulnerable than most parts of a living body, but NOT every hit in the head area is immediately fatal - on man or horse or whatever.  There are a lot of places on a head where injuries are not immediately debilitating, no matter how hard you hit them.  Add just a little armor, particularly if it is concentrated around the most vital areas, and it throws the numbers all out of proportion.  You can put a projectile through a horse's sinus passages or some places on the jaw, and draw a lot of blood without really damaging anything immediately critical.

Weapon damage is just crazy that way.  In one way, weapon damage is sudden and deadly, but then there's a chance that it just won't work out as planned.  That's what makes damage models for games so hard - reality is more complex than a simple formula will compute.

But I bet the horse didn't take a second arrow very well, unless it was wearing some serious armor ... the chances of getting lucky twice in a row drop off pretty fast.
-----------------

I'll check that armor - it may just be over-priced, or it may be a typo.

------------------

On the orcs ... do note in that report, riders (without horses) beat the crud out of said orc.  The only issue was that, due to armor and general toughness, and the Rohan guys probably not being well equipped to deal with heavy armor, it took some time.  (They were, after all, armed to fight from horse ... a very different problem than how you arm infantry.)  Had the big orc actually beaten the heavy troops from Rohan, that would be a different issue. 

Getting some tough sucker with heavy armor who keeps taking hits and getting back up, and having to take some time to beat him into the ground, is not unreasonable.  In fact, it happens all the time ... military and police often report some junkie or madman taking 20 hits from handguns and being run over by a car, and still fighting.  Inflicting critical damage can happen fast, or not so fast ... and against heavy armor, it's much more likely to be on the not-so-fast side.  And Tolkien's orcs were monsters bred for war, so much like junkies and insane people, once they get worked up to a frenzy, some of them are likely to keep fighting until you physically cut their heads completely off.  (Also like junkies and insane people, they're about as likely to fight each other as the enemy - a point that greatly benefited certain hobbits in the story... but I don't advise trying to model that in M&B.)

That's where that zero-damage stun factor comes into play.  It means that you can beat somebody (some thing, whatever) into the turf, no matter how much armor they are wearing.  Armor does not make you unstoppable - it just makes you less likely to be injured or killed (or at least injured less seriously) by any given attack (how much less depending on the specifics of the attack and the armor).

-------------------------------------

And somebody else has to mirror the download - that's the only site I can get working from here, at the moment. 

Sometimes it does strange things like that ... give it a few minutes, usually it clears.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 19, 2011, 10:20:59 AM
Good point. Just was a bit worked up from some frustrating encounters with those Rohan Skirmishers. Did over 60 damage on some of their horses.


BTW, Ron. Are you planning to implement the bleeding script later on?



MIRROR DOWNLOAD!!!! http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XDOLVNQ3
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: k0d1akattack on November 19, 2011, 11:01:27 AM
Sorry about the confusion RE: spear.  I thought I saw it in Rivendell as well so I was under the assumption that it was a bog standard spear that appeared in every/most faction equipment tables since it wasn't a "Rohan Spear", Gondorian Tower Spear", "Mirkwood Spear" or anything like that.  On a related note, some of the spears are supposed to have swing cut damage and some are supposed to have swing blunt damage right?  I can see that either being as intended (if its a small blade you aren't likely to cut with a swipe, if its a big leaf of a blade then it is practically a sword on a stick...)

Yes, especially the various elven spears should have cutting edges, as well as the Dalish bills and other polearms.

I think perhaps what is bothering people, conceptually speaking, about the stun locking is that there is no way to take mass into the equation.  If I am wearing a full suit of armor and you are swiping at me with a knife that is going to disrupt me about as much as tossing pine cones at me.  Do the same thing with something with a bit more mass to it, like a sword (assuming it can't penetrate) or a carpenter's hammer and then the stunlock makes sense.  I agree with how you have implemented it Ron, given the obvious restrictions of the engine, but I think if people recognize this point then they might have less issues with it.

As for throwing axes, I spent a few years as a kid just outside Appalachia, so I actually do vaguely know what I am talking about.  They just plain feel a bit slow to me.  It is good that the AI isn't trying to use them outside of the 10 or 15 yard range so perhaps it is worth it from a gameplay standpoint.  I haven't been around anyone hucking sharp metal objects for a while though so it could also be an issue of youth blurring my perception a bit.  As for getting the ow-ey part into the target, it is a weird mixture of art and skill.  Some of those kids just had the gift for it, and for them all it was about was getting a good sense of the distance of the target and the weight of the axe they were throwing... then again they were never throwing them at charging goblins or orcs.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 19, 2011, 11:40:20 AM
I think the issue with thrown weapons is that while yes you CAN throw them very fast, their effective range is also very limited IRL.

I've never been happy with how thrown weapons work in MB because what they tend to be is more a free shot on the infantry trying to throw for archer units.  Generally they are very ineffective.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 19, 2011, 01:07:27 PM
Was that the 125 spear that was pierce?  Just looking at the files.

I'm not sure why you make the Dunnish spears pierce beyond you don't want to make them completely useless :)

Harad short spear: 605 = 20 pierce damage

Rhun_Shortsword - 703, has no thrust? 

I do wonder if short stabbing swords should have pierce rather than cut, but thats just me.



Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on November 19, 2011, 01:11:04 PM
On the matter of uruk-hai and riders:
I don't argue that such a situation is unrealistic. On the contrary, I totally agree that if someone is armored heavily enough and gets attacked by weapons not well suited to be used against this armor, he can take many hits before someone will get lucky and actually hurt him. Uruk-hai are heavily armored and the riders were attacking that one with swords, which aren't the best anti-armor weapons.

The problem is with the Uruk-hai being way too tough, which does not fit neither the balance of the game (the rohirrim cavalry just plain sucks against them even in the open field, the sieges would be even more one-sided) nor the background of Tolkien's work, which quite clearly illustrates the qualitative superiority of the riders vs. uruk-hai, both through direct action and through character dialog and behavior. BTW, RCM for TLD 0.808 was very well balanced on this account.

Since the uruk-hai armor is no heavier then what the gondorian 4+ tier swordsmen are equipped with, and these latter go down quite easily, I presume the issue is with the uruk-hai hp, skills or other stuff being too high for the RCM.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 19, 2011, 01:24:17 PM
On the matter of uruk-hai and riders:
I don't argue that such a situation is unrealistic. On the contrary, I totally agree that if someone is armored heavily enough and gets attacked by weapons not well suited to be used against this armor, he can take many hits before someone will get lucky and actually hurt him. Uruk-hai are heavily armored and the riders were attacking that one with swords, which aren't the best anti-armor weapons.

The problem is with the Uruk-hai being way too tough, which does not fit neither the balance of the game (the rohirrim cavalry just plain sucks against them even in the open field, the sieges would be even more one-sided) nor the background of Tolkien's work, which quite clearly illustrates the qualitative superiority of the riders vs. uruk-hai, both through direct action and through character dialog and behavior. BTW, RCM for TLD 0.808 was very well balanced on this account.

Since the uruk-hai armor is no heavier then what the gondorian 4+ tier swordsmen are equipped with, and these latter go down quite easily, I presume the issue is with the uruk-hai hp, skills or other stuff being too high for the RCM.

Well balance wise I find RCM right now to be almost unplayable, but thats expected as nothing is about balance at this point, and even without RCM the game had balance issues.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: k0d1akattack on November 19, 2011, 01:43:41 PM
Was that the 125 spear that was pierce?  Just looking at the files.


I do wonder if short stabbing swords should have pierce rather than cut, but thats just me.

Can't confirm which spear it was as I do not have access to the files right now.
As for short swords with pierce, wouldn't make sense.  If you stab a sword into something its going to slice open good as its piercing... lots of tissue damage.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oyclo on November 19, 2011, 03:12:16 PM
My idea is that if you have a short thrusting sword, with a more narrow blade and its force more at the tip it should be more akin to a piercing weapon than a cut, or at least have a rather high cut damage compared to the slash.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 19, 2011, 03:36:51 PM
The release notes were with the last version ... I double-checked, after that first incident.

Everybody read the "cut, pierce, and blunt damage" explanation in those notes, if you haven't heard me explain this before.  "Pierce" does not mean "puncture" or "stab" - it means "pierces armor better than it damages tissue".  Stabbing someone with a knife is 32 cut, stabbing them with an ice pick is 16 pierce ... same armor penetration, roughly, but the knife does twice as much tissue damage.  A wooden pike has some limited penetrating power just from its weight, but the actual damage potential is dismal no matter how you look at it... that's "pierce", but at a very low number - ineffective both ways.

The numbers don't help me, as they are added when the Python code is compiled.  But Gondor was one of the first groups, so #125 is probably it.  I'll check on the Harad short spear and the Rhun short sword.

And for the record ... yeah, thrown projectiles seem faster when you're young and easily impressed.  Try the hatchet-throw again.  I could be pretty effective on a tree stump if I got my range just right, but hurling one at somebody (or something) that was trying to kill you ... just about as effective as running out of ammo and throwing the gun at them.  Militarily, their real application was to cause confusion - force an enemy to quit charging or preparing to strike and start dodging and/or hiding behind shields.  Axes did this extremely well, because it spins so you have no idea where the thing is headed... everybody within ten feet of the target will take cover.  And if you do stick one in a shield, it renders the shield extremely hard to use, just because of its weight.  In reality, they also sometimes bounce off of the ground and come back at you again, causing even more chaos.  (Can't get M&B to simulate that.)  They're somewhat like hand grenades in a modern war - a clumsy attack, really - short range, no aim, limited explosive charge - but they cause no end of panic if some nut flings one at you.

And balance issues are to be expected.  The workflow here is to get one variable - the item stats, since they're subject to the limitations of reality, for the most part - nailed down to some kind of standard.  Then other adjustments can be made to the more arbitrary numbers.  That's a much better workflow than endless chasing your tail trying to balance multiple variables all at once.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: WaltF4 on November 20, 2011, 12:01:00 AM
Thank you for you reply Ron. I agree with all of your points about fist being dismal weapons. My complaint was not really about making fist a practical weapon but was about preventing situations that seem absurd such as a swarm of 100 orcs beating a man relentlessly for 30 minutes and inflicting literally 0 damage. I was simply thinking that since the game engine does not allow for improved weapons or grappling a vastly overwhelmed person (he was being punched so frequently that he was stun locked the entire ordeal), perhaps implementing some sort of substitute would not be unreasonable. If even 1% of the punches did 1 damage this would never have come up.


Also a question about your comments on shields in the conversion notes. Are arrows significantly more likely than throwing knives to break a quarter-sheet of plywood? Archers currently break the shields of the higher tier Mordor orcs in 1 or 2 arrows. It is probably good for game balance, but is that realistic?

Again, thank you for all of your work.

Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 20, 2011, 01:37:47 AM
That'll be on a good shot, I assume? Thing is, if you have an arrow stabbing all the way through your shield, it might be hard to use. There might also be cases where shields break. from a bad arrow impact.


Do you plan to at some point implement the Bleeding Script, Ron? It was quite a fun script.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 20, 2011, 02:18:31 AM
Arrows tend to go through a shield, partially.  While that inch of arrow sticking through on the back side doesn't do much to the face of the shield, it can cut the grip, straps, or the user's hand ... which can make the shield extremely difficult to hold, if possible at all.  The large Roman shields had a center grip and placed an armored metal cup over it, to reduce this, but most shields that strap to the forearm offered little protection from this type of damage.  Even with metal heavy enough to stop an arrow, a well-placed dent can make one hard to hold.  So yeah, arrows can disable a shield ... not specifically by "breaking" the surface (although, since they do tend to penetrate, that is possible too, especially if the shield was cheaply made), but by partial penetration and causing problems on the other side.

In the throwing knives or rocks example - you're not going to get partial penetration with those.  The arm of the user, and the straps and handle of the shield, are all quite safe.  Javelins, on the other hand, take this a step further - even if they don't hit anything vital on the back side, the size and weight of the weapon forces the shield to be dropped.  It's just really tough to balance a shield anyway, and a three-foot javelin sticking out of it will totally ruin your day.

Then again, getting hit with an arrow can be deadly.  If the shield just catches one or two, before you end up with one an inch from your face and have to ditch the shield, that's one or two that did not end up in your body.

-------------------------

If ordering troops to take prisoners is an issue, somebody with the troops file will need to distribute some non-lethal weapons.  That is historically how real paramilitary/law enforcement deal with the problem - issue hardwood batons (or in the case of Japan, metal truncheons ... but Japan was always known for doing things a little extreme).  I do not have the troops file.

(Note to whoever does that ... check the weapons.  Maces with spikes or flanges are not "non-lethal" ... they are pierce now.  Only weapons that genuinely look like they would not cause massive lacerations are "blunt".)

A mob beating somebody for thirty minutes and doing little or no damage ... that sounds like what often happens to riot police.  The armor protects them from taking any real damage, but they still end up curled in a ball while a hundred angry people kick them repeatedly.  It does look crazy to watch, but that happens a lot, really.


----------------------------------

Harad short spear shows a smallish stone tip, probably obsidian or some other volcanic glass.  It was set to pierce because obsidian is very hard, but that little point in the model is not going to make much of a hole, even if they manage to keep it sharp (which would actually require replacing the tip often).  It is an ineffective spear design, when it comes to stopping a person.

Rhun short sword is curved so steeply that I'm not sure you could ever get a straight jab out of it.  I did not change that, but I know what the devs were thinking... it's a steeply curved falchion, not a "short sword" in the sense of the Roman gladius.  (You can get a stab out of a curved blade, if you know how - but it's usually a pretty weak attack, more so if armor is involved.)

-----------------------

Bleeding script is not part of the item specs ... you will need to get somebody else to plug that in.  It can be found down in the discussion thread where the conversation was held.  It is somewhat bugged, in that the last hit point of damage causes the bleeding victim to twitch a lot ... somebody will need to clean that up before it will be ready for TLD.

Another good one was the topography map in the little "backspace" command screen.  Can't remember who wrote that one ... Fisheye, maybe?  Anyway, I can look it up if somebody wants it.  It does work on 1.0x, I know.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 20, 2011, 02:57:37 AM
Seems there's two versions of the uruk-hai heavy armour. One has about 20 armour, while the other has 60. They seem to be the same price, though. Guess it's a typo.


EDIT: With the Corsair armour, there is Corsair padded armour and corsair padded raider armour. They look practically the same, yet the Raider armour costs more, but has about half the armour rating. Guessing a typo.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Northcott on November 20, 2011, 11:13:10 AM
Obsidian is very sharp, but not very hard. It flakes and breaks very easily -- which is what makes it ideal for flint-napping. It actually cuts sharper than surgical steel, and would be great for penetrating 'soft' armours -- like leather -- but shatters and splinters very easily when applied against more durable substances (ie. any metal armour).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 20, 2011, 05:34:29 PM
Obsidian is very sharp, but not very hard. It flakes and breaks very easily -- which is what makes it ideal for flint-napping. It actually cuts sharper than surgical steel, and would be great for penetrating 'soft' armours -- like leather -- but shatters and splinters very easily when applied against more durable substances (ie. any metal armour).

Obsidian shatters because it is absurdly hard.  Also true of glass, and diamond for that matter.  It is so hard that it offers no flexibility at all, which creates problems for a blade... i.e. it flakes and splinters, making it relatively easy to form, but also quick to dull or break.  Steel makes a better blade because it can flex somewhat under pressure, greatly increasing the life expectancy of the actual cutting edge and reducing the tendency to shatter (unless the steel is over-hardened, in which case it develops the same problems).

Strangely enough, records of Cortez and his band of merry plunderers tell wild stories about the Aztec obsidian weapons.  It seems that obsidian arrowheads and spear points will, in fact, go through metal heavy enough to stop musket ball.  Cortez staged some tests, because nobody could really believe that neolithic weapons were a match for the steel of Toledo... turns out, they were, and then some.  However, for practical purposes, it should be noted that the Aztec were absolute master craftsmen at making stone weapons, because they had very limited metal to work with (gold and a little copper - only stuff that would melt in a non-oxidized wood fire).  If you're careful, you can sharpen obsidian to a cutting edge that literally tapers to a single molecule ... good for microbiology or punching holes in Spanish steel armor.  In the hands of a bunch of total psychotics like the Aztec, whose major economic activity was taking prisoners to sacrifice and then using their heads as basketballs, it can be turned into some very formidable (albeit rather clumsy) blades.

But for game purposes, the point on the spear in question was rather small and mostly just a stabbing point, not an elongated blade.  Had it been a series of these stones arranged like saw teeth, the way the Aztec deployed them, it would most certainly provide some cutting power.  But a simple point is a simple point, regardless of what it is made of.  It's going to make a smallish puncture, a wound only immediately debilitating if it hits some critical system (heart, central nervous system).


----------------------------

I'll check on both the uruk and corsair armors.  Probably just typos, or prices not changed, or both.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Erhen on November 22, 2011, 11:34:04 AM
Can you add last version on the first page?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on November 22, 2011, 03:28:17 PM
Light Scale Over Mail, Light Quilted And Scale Armor and Light Mail And Surcoat (all three of Mirkwood) have same prices, while having progressively inferior characteristics.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oldtimer on November 23, 2011, 07:54:04 AM
Hi Ron,

good too see you working on this matter, it`s sorely needed.

Have you touched anything but weapons? Because now some troops are way OP:

- Rhun scouts totally own Dale scouts and often Elves unless vastly outnumbered. Dwarfs can hold their own but with painful losses.
I do not actually think Rhun need weakening. What`s needed is changing the composition of Dale scouts, they must be(and should be considering their opposition) mounted and/or have really strong archers. Elves could have much better armour(but it`s not tactically OK to armour scouts heavily) or have a spear component. Or not leave forested terrain... Not much fun in that unfortunately... Because if they venture into open terrain they

- will get slaughtered by Rhun, warg riders and mounted troops in general. They need spears or riders.

- Dol Guldur scouts are now scary when they manage to close in, but they often get shot before that. OK IMO.

- Mordor/Morgul scouts almost impossible unless vastly outnumbered. Gondor scouts need more cavalrymen. A parallel to Dale vs Rhun.

- Isengard scouts archery too powerful vs inf/archers. NOONE should be able to outshoot elves while clearly outnumbered.

- Beornings/woodmen are the epitome of uselessness vs riders and most anything else.

BTW, I disagree with the opinion that low lvl "goodies" troops should be orc-fodder. There is not enough men available to be wasteful with them. Neither are the good factions societies medieval, relying on local levies with own, mainly sub-standard gear and a hard core of feudal knights. Except for manpower they have resources, armouries and standing armies. What makes many think ME is a medieval world is  medieval tech. But tech is one thing, social structure another.

And keep up the good work!

Rgds, Oldtimer
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 23, 2011, 10:03:43 AM
Ron doesn't have access to the troops files, so he can't balance factions.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oldtimer on November 23, 2011, 01:00:15 PM
Ron doesn't have access to the troops files, so he can't balance factions.

Hi,

too bad because TLD devs plan to make their own adjustments to combat and we will end up dissatisfied all around unless someone has necessary data access and can(and wants to) do the balancing twice.

Cooperation and one balanced combat model would be better.
I suspect that trying to achieve balance by reworking weapons only is a lost cause. Or so time consuming it becomes one anyway.

Rgds, Oldtimer
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Meduion on November 23, 2011, 03:19:46 PM
Bear in mind that the RCM isn't about balance; it's about a realistic combat model. Balance is another concern entirely than portraying the realistic effects and limitations of arms and armor. Fact of the matter is if a guy in heavy armor is charging you on a horse bred for war with a cavalry sabre designed to amplify cutting impact when swung from a height, and you're standing on the ground, you're in trouble. That's what the RCM is about, and it does an accurate job of depicting that, I think.

Keep in mind also that Tolkien's world isn't balanced either. Essentially, the free peoples are better than their adversaries in all ways except one; numbers. Elves and Dwarves are pretty much the best at everything, followed by the Dunedain, and then followed by Gondor and Rohan, more or less. This superiority is reflected even less than it should be in some cases by the current troop numbers.

However, as far as adjustments to that go, I'm working on something right now. I'm starting with the individual troop files and changing them to reflect what is in my opinion (and I'm a Tolkien nut) an accurate depiction of the strengths and weaknesses of the cultures and races of Tolkien's world. It's a big project and a long haul, and I haven't even begun play testing any of it, I'm still just working with the numbers. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it when I'm done though.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oldtimer on November 23, 2011, 04:22:46 PM
Hi Meduion,

but if the guy owning you is unarmoured, on a light horse and able to outshoot foot archers with ease something ain`t right. Especially as he also has a very strong charge, sometimes with a with lance.

Certainly unarmoured light cav must excel in some ways to be useful, but not become invincible.
If my troops get constantly beaten I search for countermeasures. A Dale leader would not send low lvl inf to scout in Rhun.

Rgds, Oldtimer
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Meduion on November 23, 2011, 04:42:04 PM
Absolutely agree with you there; it's something I'm trying to address in the changes that I'm making. Unfortunately there's not very much we can do about the AI of the game sending endless scouts off to their death :p.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 23, 2011, 04:58:49 PM
Meduion, what your doing sounds awesome. When you feel the troop files have become satisfactory, could you please upload them for us to download and try out? Over time, we might even be able to get a full Realistic Model for TLD, if someone handled prices, someone handles troops, and etc..
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Pitar on November 23, 2011, 07:18:39 PM
Just wanted to voice my support for the RCM--would be wonderful if this model was used as the basis for faction balancing.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oldtimer on November 24, 2011, 05:15:25 AM
Absolutely agree with you there; it's something I'm trying to address in the changes that I'm making. Unfortunately there's not very much we can do about the AI of the game sending endless scouts off to their death :p.

Hi,

AI might well continue to send out endless scouts. If only composed of troops suited to ev opposition they would have a sporting chance. Though I don`t know how to code this.

Rgds, Oldtimer
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Surrealbeliefs on November 24, 2011, 07:22:41 AM
BTW, I disagree with the opinion that low lvl "goodies" troops should be orc-fodder. There is not enough men available to be wasteful with them. Neither are the good factions societies medieval, relying on local levies with own, mainly sub-standard gear and a hard core of feudal knights. Except for manpower they have resources, armouries and standing armies. What makes many think ME is a medieval world is  medieval tech. But tech is one thing, social structure another.

I completely agree with Oldtimer on the sentiment of medieval technology, but that's the extent of the comparison.

In the Battle of Pelennor Fields, the companies that come to aid to Gondor from outlying provinces number at less than 3,000 men. It's also stated that Faramir in the defense was outnumbered by ten times the number of Mordor's host. Then there's the assistance of Rohan which adds another 6,000 men to the defense of Minas Tirith.

Evil has generally always outnumbered good with the exception of Isengard. It's stated that the force of Haradrim was to be three times the number of Rohirrim, so that could be up to 18,000 men from the Haradrim. Isengard did outnumber Rohan, but not by the margins that Mordor did to Gondor. They mostly had the advantage of an ailing leader, attacking separate parties (i.e. Fords of Isen, where 3,500 Rohirrim were killed) and facing an otherwise dispersed army.

This isn't counting what later comes with Aragorn on the ships and via land. Or the Khand, Southrons and other hosts that join the ones from Mordor.

Clearly man power was lacking in this time period more than anything else as Oldtimer said.

I do agree there should be an uniform effort to balance prices, factions and items all together as it's a bit lopsided right now. It hasn't detracted from my enjoyment of the modification, but there could be a greater addition in enjoyment if these issues are able to be remedied.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 24, 2011, 07:57:31 AM
For the record - conscripts are normally poorly trained as well as poorly equipped, but that doesn't mean they're fodder.  The general military procedure, historically, is to use such low-quality troops in reserve and security duties, in order to free up higher-quality troops for the more aggressive and front-line operations.  During this time they can be given additional training (and equipment as it becomes available), and will likely see very limited combat - so they can get better without being torn to bits.  Once they are ready for full-scale combat duty, they would be rotated to front-line units and new conscripts would move into their former jobs.  This applies no matter if you're talking about modern military reserves or the Roman Auxilia ... there are plenty of combat support roles for the poorly trained and equipped, without just using them to soak up hostile fire.

For game purposes, the conscripts could escort caravans and man fortifications, theoretically freeing up the heavy infantry and cav for offensive combat operations, and putting the best hardware where it can be best used.  This would be sane, historically justifiable, economically reasonable, and militarily effective.

(Only a total psychopath would put his weakest units on the front row.  Lighter, faster units ... maybe, particularly if they were mostly intended as skirmishers ... but not the poorly trained conscripts.  That's just a waste of manpower.)

---------------------------

We haven't seen any major bugs in a couple of days.

Sent a dev version of this to GA (I hope, if the mail went through), with the recently mentioned bugs touched up somewhat.  As soon as he confirms that the dev team have it and it is working, I'll be ready to hand the whole mess over to them.  Somebody else can work out the factions and the economic issues.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on November 24, 2011, 08:35:03 AM
So the issue of elven bows being unusable from horseback will be left to the devs to decide upon? Or will you change it before sending them the final version?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 24, 2011, 09:20:28 AM
I think he might be leaving it to the Devs.


Wish Ron would stick around. Will be sad to see him go :(.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ron Losey on November 25, 2011, 06:12:57 AM
OK, it's confirmed.  GA has the file and will finish testing it ASAP...  after which point, if there are no immediate issues, maintaining the file will be his job.

Any of you wanting to organize other rebalance work will need to contact the devs ... I am officially dropping out of the loop.  Surely you all can figure it out.

I'll check back a couple of times to see how TLD is coming along, but unless something serious changes, I'm thinking this will be the last of these projects for me.  It's just too stressful to spend that much time thinking about what blades do to living bodies.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on November 25, 2011, 07:19:28 AM
Thank you and good luck, Ron!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: mikev359 on November 25, 2011, 08:54:48 AM
Thank you Ron.

Good Luck.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oldtimer on November 25, 2011, 09:43:12 AM
Hi Ron,

thx awfully for all you`ve done. Hope you`ll play TLD and chime in now and then.

Rgds, Oldtimer
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Egoist XIV on November 25, 2011, 10:34:17 AM
It's sad to see you go. Thank you for all the moments of joy you've given us.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Meduion on November 25, 2011, 03:02:07 PM
Alas, and just when I found an error: The Lamedon Veteran Warrior armor offers 55 head protection, 30 body protection, and 10 leg protection, which makes no sense. Oh well, changed it in my own file!

Thanks for the work and time you've put in though Ron!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: ghanburighan on November 25, 2011, 03:31:04 PM
Thank you very much Ron for the great work you put into this and other M&B mods. It is greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: MrGrendel on November 25, 2011, 05:56:03 PM
In the Battle of Pelennor Fields, the companies that come to aid to Gondor from outlying provinces number at less than 3,000 men. It's also stated that Faramir in the defense was outnumbered by ten times the number of Mordor's host. Then there's the assistance of Rohan which adds another 6,000 men to the defense of Minas Tirith.

Evil has generally always outnumbered good with the exception of Isengard. It's stated that the force of Haradrim was to be three times the number of Rohirrim, so that could be up to 18,000 men from the Haradrim. Isengard did outnumber Rohan, but not by the margins that Mordor did to Gondor. They mostly had the advantage of an ailing leader, attacking separate parties (i.e. Fords of Isen, where 3,500 Rohirrim were killed) and facing an otherwise dispersed army.

When analyzing troop numbers and making assumptions regarding balance, you have to bear in mind that Tolkien in his tale of heroes used overwhelming odds to create suspense and portray a hopeless situation. The implication there is that 10:1 odds should by any means have resulted in a crushing defeat, not that 10:1 odds "might be ok" for the good guys because they're better.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Surrealbeliefs on November 26, 2011, 07:24:33 AM
In the Battle of Pelennor Fields, the companies that come to aid to Gondor from outlying provinces number at less than 3,000 men. It's also stated that Faramir in the defense was outnumbered by ten times the number of Mordor's host. Then there's the assistance of Rohan which adds another 6,000 men to the defense of Minas Tirith.

Evil has generally always outnumbered good with the exception of Isengard. It's stated that the force of Haradrim was to be three times the number of Rohirrim, so that could be up to 18,000 men from the Haradrim. Isengard did outnumber Rohan, but not by the margins that Mordor did to Gondor. They mostly had the advantage of an ailing leader, attacking separate parties (i.e. Fords of Isen, where 3,500 Rohirrim were killed) and facing an otherwise dispersed army.

When analyzing troop numbers and making assumptions regarding balance, you have to bear in mind that Tolkien in his tale of heroes used overwhelming odds to create suspense and portray a hopeless situation. The implication there is that 10:1 odds should by any means have resulted in a crushing defeat, not that 10:1 odds "might be ok" for the good guys because they're better.

This is consistent with everything in Tolkien's universe that evil always utilizes overwhelming numbers. There was various machinations in progress that allowed for the victory of good, so everything was in fact dire for the good guys. However in every conflict from the First Age to the Third Age, has resulted in good being outnumbered by listless masses of evil.

This is already reflected in how the game is currently balanced, with evil having expendable troops and the good side having more precious troops to conserve. So even if you disagree, this is already how things are balanced even with RCM (I'm enjoying it now). As Gondor right now, I'm sweeping up evil easily. As Isengard, I'm still having to regularly replace losses. So I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, since it seems to be agreed that evil's (with exceptions) troops are inferior and rely on numbers more than good.

I wasn't implying that 10:1 odds was the norm for every single battle either. I stated those paragraphs to convey the troop numbers that either side could pool together. All in all, man is not able to pull together the amount of soldiers that could in previous times. This is alluded to by them having to withdraw from Isengard (Orthanc) and various other Gondorian holds. This supports the idea that manpower was more precious to Gondor, rather than them lacking the quality of equipment or training to fight effectively.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Barbudo Siniestro on November 27, 2011, 07:17:33 AM
This is already reflected in how the game is currently balanced, with evil having expendable troops and the good side having more precious troops to conserve. So even if you disagree, this is already how things are balanced even with RCM (I'm enjoying it now). As Gondor right now, I'm sweeping up evil easily. As Isengard, I'm still having to regularly replace losses. So I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, since it seems to be agreed that evil's (with exceptions) troops are inferior and rely on numbers more than good.

I wasn't implying that 10:1 odds was the norm for every single battle either. I stated those paragraphs to convey the troop numbers that either side could pool together. All in all, man is not able to pull together the amount of soldiers that could in previous times. This is alluded to by them having to withdraw from Isengard (Orthanc) and various other Gondorian holds. This supports the idea that manpower was more precious to Gondor, rather than them lacking the quality of equipment or training to fight effectively.

What it is clear in the books is that when good guys are 10:1 outnumbered they are going to be defeated, no doubt. But, in the last moment, a deus ex machina appears to save the day: the eagles, a ring falling into a volcano, two armies taking the enemy's flank and rear by surprise like in Pelennor...

What is very clear before the battles is that there is no hope. No good army defeats an evil army 10 times bigger in an open field without an unespected help. In Helm, the odds were 5:1 and there was no hope either, even if the good guys has a perfect defensive position.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Surrealbeliefs on November 27, 2011, 09:49:09 AM
A discussion about literary devices and plots should be brought to another thread rather than something for the RCM mod. The suggestion of deus ex machina is applicable, just not to everything that you've stated. The battles of Helms Deep and Pelennor Fields isn't applicable for that term. It wasn't sudden liberation from staggering situations, since the forces brought together were raised up by key figures (Gandalf with the Rohirrim and Eomer), Aragorn and Theoden at Pelennor fields. If they are, then any victory that good was able to win would be deus ex machina. We're working within the confines of a fictional work to best depict the quality of troops based on what is before us. I'd rather stay within what is portrayed with the book (Third Age Total War does this very well as far as balance goes. I'd look to them for inspiration on it. For example, you have militia, mid-level troops, then their elite for Gondor.).

On a second note, what exactly are you suggesting? That evil's troops should be tit for tat in terms of quality with good troops? I'll provide my views from my statements.

1.) Evil has more troops than good.
2.) Good has fewer troops than evil.

Grendel already covered the portrayal of a hopeless situation as an element to portray the immensity of the situation during the conflict. You can let me know if there was something you didn't understand in my previous statement and I'll be sure to explain it. "I stated those paragraphs to convey the troop numbers that either side could pool together." Is a pretty exact summary of why I pulled out those citations and paraphrasing from the book. You'll notice a trend with Tolkien's works; hope within hopeless situations. That doesn't mean he's consistently using divine intervention at every weaving of his story. Outside of the eagles, everything else works within the confines of the story.

For further insight on Tolkien's view of deus ex machina, you can look at his letters. He does address it and uses it sparingly, so I wouldn't claim so many instances of it within his work. If you'd like to discuss this further, then make a new thread and I'll comment there as to not derail this further.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Conners on November 27, 2011, 05:08:15 PM
They mean that when there is a battle of ten-to-one in evil's favour, it isn't, "OMG, Elves are awesome and epic level, lol, All Orcs Must Die!", instead, the good ones are something more like, "Well.... we're ******. For Gondor!!".

I do see your point that the totalled armies of the two sides, the evil outnumbers the good. Good troops are meant to be generally better, and I think generally Good Commanders are meant to be brighter than the Evil Commanders (this would be a definitive factor)? Since the Good was usually on the defensive, they might also have the advantages of terrain (especially if the orcs don't know much about the terrain they're going to invade).

Haven't read the books closely enough to say exactly how things went generally, outside the main battles.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Arkerless on November 27, 2011, 10:08:00 PM
They mean that when there is a battle of ten-to-one in evil's favour, it isn't, "OMG, Elves are awesome and epic level, lol, All Orcs Must Die!", instead, the good ones are something more like, "Well.... we're ******. For Gondor!!".

Agree with this.

Quote
I do see your point that the totalled armies of the two sides, the evil outnumbers the good. Good troops are meant to be generally better, and I think generally Good Commanders are meant to be brighter than the Evil Commanders (this would be a definitive factor)? Since the Good was usually on the defensive, they might also have the advantages of terrain (especially if the orcs don't know much about the terrain they're going to invade).

Haven't read the books closely enough to say exactly how things went generally, outside the main battles.

I dont think the good commanders in general were brighter than the evil ones - if anything perhaps a bit of the opposite, as sometimes the 'good' commanders (particularly southron humans)  werent all that bright at all. For the most part the story follows the fellowship but I definitely got the impression the Orcs were clever if not truly smart, very cunning at the very least. I seem to recall there was some mention of them ambushing heavy Gondorian troops and slaughtering them on occasion.

That's a different issue from characterising the troops though - for the most part in the book and the mod, the light side troops are stronger individually, but the dark side troops are still vicious scary things and they swarm in incredible numbers.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Oldtimer on November 28, 2011, 04:17:08 AM
Hi all,

back to combat and weapons. There`s a lot to do on quality/price/availability to make balanced gameplay with RCM possible. Just one of very many examples needing attention:

- rohirrim throwing axes have same stats as dwarven but you get seven for the price of four dwarven AFAIR.

Rgds, Oldtimer
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Arkerless on November 28, 2011, 06:51:02 PM
As-is it still actually seems more balanced than before, but I agree there are still a lot of little things that need to be fixed up. Is someone working on this officially? I would be happy to help.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: The Yogi on December 04, 2011, 06:25:16 PM
RCM is a great thing, but aside from the pricing issues, there need to be some lore corrections.
My gripe is with the bows. Elvish bows are superior, and once the Elvish troops have been updated with the PD to match, they will be fine. But manish and orc bows are not lore-correct right now.

The best human bow-makers, hands down, are Gondor, which have a long and proud tradition. It's specifically mentioned in Tolkiens work (can't remember where right now though) that although Gondor has forgotten the craft of fashioning the superior steel bows of Numenór, they still make the best normal bows. A Gondor longbow should be the epitome of human bowmaking. Since the pirates of Umbar are also of Numenorite ancestry, the same goes for them, I suppose.

The other factions, Rohan, Harad etc should all come a distant second to the Numenorite factions.

And of Orcish bows, only the longbows of Isengard should come close (but not quite on par with) their human (but not Gondor) counterparts. All other orcs are too stunted to use man-sized bows and should be relatively weak.

Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: neuromant on January 31, 2012, 01:47:50 PM
Hey there, message for the devs concerning 3.1 and RCM:

Can we safely use the item_kinds1.txt from Ron for 3.01 directly in 3.1 or did you change (add, delete) some weapons around ?

Or, even better, did you go over the stats on your own and reach a new balance with the 3.1 ? I did not find any notice of a modification about that in your new tld3.1 manual faq, so I don't really know.

Thanks in advance, and thanks for this new piece of epicness (I can't wait to try the new balancing of the campaign.. epic victories and heavy losses, here I come !)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Pitar on January 31, 2012, 06:00:43 PM
Also wondering the same as neuromant regarding the safety of using the RCM beta for 3.1. I find it hard to go back to the previous item stats! Just feels so weird and hard to tell the effectiveness of armour by sight.



As I understand the last revision was passed onto GA, who is 'fighting for democracy in Russia'? I know it is lame to say this when I'm unable to do so myself, but really hope someone maintains this hard work!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: MadVader on February 01, 2012, 12:51:57 AM
What the TLD team needs is a dedicated person to work on item (and troop) balancing. Someone who plays well with others (and not with a huge chip on his shoulder lol).
If you are enthusiastic and knowledgable, join the TLD team.

Otherwise, the old RCM should work, but you use it at your own risk. It's a 3rd party tweak, not something that the TLD team can support.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: neuromant on February 01, 2012, 02:47:13 AM
Update : I tested to use the RCM file from 3.01, and it does weird things.

Some textures are missing (for instance, the face of the training wooden shield accessible in Minas Tirith in the barracks), the front of the shield is simply transparent, while the back has the correct texture. I did not test much further, I think that some textures were renamed, and so the simple file .txt will not work. I guess one has to restart from the python files. Sorry to announce that...

The problem with this kind of modification is, every time a new update will be released, every effort will be reduced to nothing. This, if I understood correctly, was the reason why Ron left. I agree that the item/troop balance should be addressed within the mod, to release something both the modders and the players are happy with. I understand also that many of the modders have different opinions on how it should be achieved, and, also, that any new person in the team will be confronted with the fact that he did not spent already countless hours to try and achieve this balance.

As it is, I have yet to play entirely with the new official troops and items, I am restarting a campaign as a Lothlorien elf, and will do other troop trees as well, before I can be any judge of the new balance (if the ai has been tweeked also, there is no way to tell before hand if everything is smooth now, just from the item stats). If after that, I think something can be done, I will gladly propose my help to the team. I have a fair experience in medieval combat, in Tolkien works, and with programming (though not with the module system. However I think for the balancing part, one does not need to be versed in it). I think with some time and conciliation, the precious advice from Ron, and the next to unlimited time of beta-testing available with this community, we can achieve a very polished experience.

Best to all, and ride now, to death and glory !
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 01, 2012, 07:03:00 AM
Wouldn't it be easier to just update the file with new names? Shouldn't be that hard.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 09, 2012, 09:45:26 AM
Finally did a bit of testing myself - yeah, some armor textures are missing, so an update is in order. IIRC, GA took up maintenance of RCM from Ron - could he provide one, perhaps? As far as I understand, only minor changes are required, basically, changing old texture names to new ones.

I seriously doubt that.

Ok, I've found the relevant post - http://mbx.streetofeyes.com/index.php/topic,2492.msg60409.html#msg60409 (http://mbx.streetofeyes.com/index.php/topic,2492.msg60409.html#msg60409). Maybe Ron misunderstood something. Anyway, it would be painful to see RCM go down because no one would maintain it.

I'll look into updating RCM for 3.1 this weekend. GA

Thank you! If you need any kind of (unfortunately, unskilled) help, please don't hesitate to ask.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 11, 2012, 02:14:44 PM
I've started modifying item_kinds1 while trying to keep few things in check - not going too far away from the modders style, adding realism and balance.
The basics are - elves and dwarves are the best crafters so they have the best armors and weapons with elves better at crafting bows/swords/light/medium armour and dwarves better at heavy armour/shields/axes and hammers. Then there are Gondor/Corsairs and Black Numenorians with slightly less better weapons and equipment, followed by Harad/Rhun/Rohan and Isengard. At the bottom are Uruks(just little bit worse then Uruk-hais) followed by Wild men(not sure here or with Rhun/Rohan?) and Orcs at the very bottom.
Keep in mind that the differences won't be big - mostly lightier armours and weapons which are faster with slightly more/less dmg here and there.
A 3kg orc axe is just as lethal as some 1kg elven sword if you're hit in the head with it(or anywhere else) - the first will smash your head with brute strenght thanks to the weight and the second can split your helm and head as well.
The formula is simple - longer and havier weapon - more dmg but lower speed. Lightier and shorter - faster with less dmg, with racial benefits and drawbacks applied.
The main part is that the weapon/armour will not make a difference if used by s'one unskilled with it. So the bigger difference will be after i modify the troops as well.
I'm writing here because i want to know if there is interest in this, so i can upload the new file(s) for testing and feedback or to keep them only for my personal use.
Also i haven't checked Ron's stats at all and maybe is good idea to wait for GA to post them if this is already done, so to start with the troops?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: vota dc on February 11, 2012, 03:55:27 PM
But weapon and armor quality is already as you said.
Weapon proficiency is based on tier with elves and dunedain higher, then dwarves, then men and then orcs. Only thing that would be funnier is archers with lower wp on meele weapons and higher power strike: finally break the rule that archer lose because they are weaker and make them lose because they are less skilled in meele.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: GetAssista on February 12, 2012, 05:28:12 AM
Updated RCM for TLD3.1. Looks ok to me, did not test it extensively, so reply here if any problems arise.
replace module.ini and item_kinds.txt in your MB/Modules/TLD folder with those from archive

http://www.wupload.com/file/2662242227/RCM_TLD31.rar
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 12, 2012, 06:15:44 AM
Yahoo! A thousand internets to you, man!

I'll test it right away.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: GondorKnight on February 12, 2012, 06:34:10 AM
I am using the 'Warband animation' before, and I just want to test this one; both is listed on the offical download page.
But it seems that they crash each other- some problem related to skeleton when loading.
I never encountered that one before, but just now after I installed the RCM.

EDIT: Just find out that both submod modify the 'module.ini'.
I'm looking for something that I can do.
RCM modifies a specific portion of module.ini (search for "RCM"). So you can copy paste only this portion from archinved ini into your current ini. Should not touch skeletons at all, hmm..

Yes, I got a tool and compared the two files, and I worked it out.

However I found something strange or wrong- Celeborn seems to be naked, or lacking armour.
Maybe he's wearing the new Lorien armour or something?
I don't know how to take a screenshot, but that just something I found as I started a new game.

EDIT: Checked again with my older character, it seems that not only Celeborn, but all Haldir and Orophin is lacking armour also.
It happens when they are sitting in a city- I haven't checked if they can get it when out on campaign.

I know what the problem is. Will fix soon.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: hayate666 on February 12, 2012, 07:31:12 AM
It's been a while since I last posted here, but TLD brought me back. Awesome mod! However, since I installed RCM I got strange scripting errors. When I entered any city whatsoever I ended up in an escape from Moria quest or something. New characters don't receive skill points and spawn at random places in the world. This is TLD with hotfixes installed.

I'm currently trying to reinstall TLD again with all hotfixes and see where it screws up exactly, but I was wondering if anybody else was experiencing this.

Edit: reinstalling everything from scratch fixed it. I'll keep my eyes open for any bugs.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: GetAssista on February 12, 2012, 08:22:34 AM
EDIT: Checked again with my older character, it seems that not only Celeborn, but all Haldir and Orophin is lacking armour also.
It happens when they are sitting in a city- I haven't checked if they can get it when out on campaign.

Try this one http://www.wupload.com/file/2662242227/RCM_TLD31.rar
There were couple new items in 3.1 that I forgot to include into RCM
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: thecalaquendi on February 13, 2012, 02:19:12 PM
Awesome will try this right away!!


Edit: The values still need a lot of balancing.  Also, the Lorien armours still has the normal armour values, meaning they're essentially useless.  Elven bows have cutting in stead of pierce damage...

How difficult is it to modify the values? How many items are there in total? What tool is best for this? If it's not too complicated I might give it a try.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Meduion on February 13, 2012, 05:49:41 PM
Awesome will try this right away!!


Edit: The values still need a lot of balancing.  Also, the Lorien armours still has the normal armour values, meaning they're essentially useless.  Elven bows have cutting in stead of pierce damage...

How difficult is it to modify the values? How many items are there in total? What tool is best for this? If it's not too complicated I might give it a try.

The RCM isn't about balance, it's about realism -- certain equipment seems unbalanced because it is, and it's supposed to be that way. Armor values are easy enough to tweak, and most of the Lorien armors do have the adjusted values, I think there's one that's missing the adjustment and tweaking isn't difficult, just modify in the text file. All bows are supposed to have cutting damage as well in the RCM, that isn't an error.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 14, 2012, 12:47:08 AM
Here, I've edited the two new armors (Lorien and Rohan) and two new Rohan lances - http://www.wupload.com/file/2662953992/item_kinds1.txt

The stats are basically taken from Ron's items and only tweaked very slightly for flavor. I think these are all the arms and armor additions, if I forgot something, please post about it.
thanks a lot. I missed tweaking them when updating
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Pitar on February 16, 2012, 10:25:19 PM
Thanks a bunch!! Time to sink my teeth into 3.1.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 17, 2012, 11:44:03 AM
OK, until the devs put their new balanced items, i've made a total rebalancing of itemskinds1.txt using Ron Losey file as a base or to be more precise - the last update of Ron's RCM done by Get Assista.
I haven't touched only the food and the horse prices still. There are little changes in the armours and helmets stats, except HUGE changes in their weights, as i saw Ron did a great job there. Other than this - reworked bows(use pierce but with much lower stats), horse charges(blunt not cut dmg) tweaked all weapon stats, as Ron probably missed that(in the original file of TLD ) there was a big mess in the Capabilities section of the weapons and this was causing strange in game effects - like labels - Can't use on Horse, but using it while mounted or you couldn't trust with a sharp sword only being able to swing with it etc.
Bear in mind that prices are quite high compared to "vanilla".
Hope you like it.

Note that lowest digit in prices of armors and boots carried race info. Would be so not ok if you changed it :)


Quote
Note that lowest digit in prices of armors and boots carried race info. Would be so not ok if you changed it :)

I tested it and haven't found any problems so far...I'm using the Item Editor as i'm feeling lazy to install Python for this :). The strange thing is that I have problems with using Hookie's Troop Editor, which automatically switches some of the troop meshes, so i have to hunt them down after i save my work and change them back manually....
If i don't forget i'll take a picture next time - it's quite hilarious to see an Uruk with Orc's mixed meshes :D

EDIT - Noticed what you meant - the restrictions are gone. I'll re add them and apply more, as there were missing some - uruks and orcs were able to use men armours, uruks could use orcs helms and foot wear etc....

helms are universal, no restrictions on them. If you see missings in armors and boots, report them in bugreport thread please, preferrably in one bunch

EDIT2 - Here is my final version.....for now :)
http://www.wupload.com/file/2664203162/Final_for_now....._item_kinds1.rar (http://www.wupload.com/file/2664203162/Final_for_now....._item_kinds1.rar)
Fixed vanilla restrictiions, but sadly without installing Python and using Module system won't be able to change the other restrictions, even though i changed the corresponding numbers - will do it after i redo troops.txt. Also found few bugs - an elven armor weighting 20000 :o

Quote
helms are universal, no restrictions on them. If you see missings in armors and boots, report them in bugreport thread please, preferrably in one bunch

Haven't seen any "wrong" armors or boots yet. I don't agree on helmets, but it's your mod and you do what you want with it.
My point is that for ex - orcs-uruks - Uruks are bigger and wear bigger helmets/armour/shields(more weight) and also no self respecting Uruk will wear an orc equipment - all other Uruks will make fun of him all the time, if he manage to get in it in the first place ;), and most of the orcs won't be able to wear uruk equipment due to exhaustion from the weight and 'cause no uruk will allow that :) . Exceptions are probably only weapons.
However, i understand about helmets, but what about shields - are those universal too?

P.S. Thanks for pointing me about the last digit.

EDIT3 : Little rebalance - lower weights of some thrown weapons and arrows(Get Assista is right about arrow weight), little lowered DMG of arrows and added more requiriments for the items - heavy armours and most weapons need strenght, except bows which need power draw. Requiriments are quite reaseanoble with exception of Uruk and Uruk-hai ones - they need more strenght.
http://www.wupload.com/file/2665762687/Final_22.02_item_kinds1.rar (http://www.wupload.com/file/2665762687/Final_22.02_item_kinds1.rar)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 24, 2012, 01:22:31 AM
http://www.wupload.com/file/2666930792/troops.txt - a sort of update for troops.txt file. It mostly corrects obvious mistakes (like Dol Guldur warg riders having 0 Horse Archery skill) and inconsistencies (i.e. Thranduil Royal Swordsmen and Spearmen being worse then Elite Infantry) and makes level progressions a bit smoother in terms of skills. Apart from that, Dale and Rhun are a bit strengthened. Note that the changes are minor and do not alter the balance in significant way, but they should make overall gameplay a bit better, at least, until the devs release their new version.

EDIT: There was one mistake missed (0 PD of top-tier Harad mounted archers), now it's corrected. Re-download the file, if you've downloaded it previously.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: vota dc on February 24, 2012, 07:50:29 AM
Surely Rhun noble line deserve more than 2 power strike, but keep in mind that Ox Infantry have a lethal weapon (43c) so their power strike shouldn't be higher: Variag Axeman axe is a lot weaker (maybe too much). On the other side marchwarden of Dale have a crappy sword and shield.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 24, 2012, 08:03:30 AM
I only play RCM and with it all two-handed weapons become lethal:) The main problem of Rhunians is their absence of armor, but that's how they've been designed,so it's ok. The cavalry needs higher power strike though.

Weapons are balanced according to their real-world performance (all caveats applied) in RCM, so Ox Infantry won't get any kind of advantage over Variags - on the contrary, it will be brought about on par with them, which feels right.

I really don't know how this troop file would affect combat in Native, since Native is currently totally unbalanced and you're changing it anyway. This is intended primarily for RCM, that's why I posted it here.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: hayate666 on February 24, 2012, 05:18:02 PM
Since updating RCM I get several dwarves standing around with no armor. This is the case with Kili Goldfinger and the guildmaster of Erebor. What's causing this? Any changes in strength requirements or something?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 24, 2012, 05:32:20 PM
Depends which file are you using. You should have no probs with all but http://www.wupload.com/file/2665762687/Final_22.02_item_kinds1.rar as this one have additional requiriments and needs update of troops.txt for some of the troops/lords, which i'll update next week.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: hayate666 on February 24, 2012, 05:43:37 PM
That is indeed the problem as that's the file I'm using. Looking out for bugs, but it looks like a very well done job so far!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Sil on February 24, 2012, 08:40:56 PM
My first post here, but I noticed a few interesting things... Installed a clean copy of TLD and RCM, and after that the starting weapons are bugged.

As Rohan, it says you should get an fighting axe, but I never got mine in game, nor did I get my bow or arrows on Rivendell, only that sword, clothes etc.

Then there's the whole thing about item pricing, it's just ridiculous... takes you about a month in game time to come up with 6000+ RPs so you can buy a bow or anything worth using, oh and lets not even go into the prices of armors.

I also noticed that NPC spearmen are next to useless with RCM.

EDIT: The post above was towars Grothag's "new" versions etc. Now that I installed the version in the first post everything seems to work great so far.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 24, 2012, 10:11:15 PM
EDIT: The post above was towars Grothag's "new" versions etc. Now that I installed the version in the first post everything seems to work great so far.

Grothag's versions are his own custom tweaks based on the submod, NOT the RCM itself.

http://www.wupload.com/file/2662242227/RCM_TLD31.rar - this is the link to current RCM version
http://www.wupload.com/file/2662953992/item_kinds1.txt - you should overwrite the item_kinds1.txt in it with this file. There were a couple new weapons and armors added and GA forgot to update their values for RCM. This file updates them.
http://www.wupload.com/file/2666930792/troops.txt - you might also want to try this troop file. It corrects some mistakes and inconsistencies (like 0 Horse Archery skill for some horse archers) and buffs Dale and Rhun a bit.

I guess we'll have to ask GA to make a sticky post with download link to RCM, so that people don't have to sift through this thread and don't erroneously download non-RCM stuff.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 25, 2012, 01:33:03 AM
Quote
I guess we'll have to ask GA to make a sticky post with download link to RCM, so that people don't have to sift through this thread and don't erroneously download non-RCM stuff.

You're right. It seems ppl not always read what they're installing.

Quote
As Rohan, it says you should get an fighting axe, but I never got mine in game, nor did I get my bow or arrows on Rivendell, only that sword, clothes etc.

Thanks for reporting that. I haven't tested it with all factions. The problem is with the new requirements. All will be fixed with the updated troop.txt.

Quote
Then there's the whole thing about item pricing, it's just ridiculous... takes you about a month in game time to come up with 6000+ RPs so you can buy a bow or anything worth using, oh and lets not even go into the prices of armors.

Well TBH i found it ridiculous at around rank 5 to have enough money to purchase the best armours and weapons, as i did it with the native TLD prices. Also now there is a point to invest in the trading skill. So this is my point of view - if you don't like it, you use the others ;) .
Also an advice - invest in prisoner management skill - you get lots of resources from there ;) .

Quote
I also noticed that NPC spearmen are next to useless with RCM.

It's the game mechanic that is bugged - with the spears you need space so you can trust - the longer the spear the greater the distance, but the AI is always trying to get as close as possible and so it can't use the spears as intended.
In my version I only boosted the spears - almost all can be used with shields, some were missing additional capabilities - eg. to swing left and right and the 2nd type of dmg, etc.
Both RCM and my version are using the weapons models real length taken from the brf's. The devs made most of the spears long(no less than ~150), as it should be - the spear must be longer than the longest sword, otherwise there is no point, but as i said earlier the core mechanic is bugged.
In the new troop.txt i'm working on, all troops will be much deadlier - going to make them equal to the player at the same lvl. Then the spears will be much more effective too carried by soldiers with higher proficiencies and base stats.

Quote
That is indeed the problem as that's the file I'm using. Looking out for bugs, but it looks like a very well done job so far!

Thanks. I'm glad you like it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 25, 2012, 02:08:17 AM
How about creating a separate thread for your submode, where you would describe it and provide download links? That way we can avoid the confusion between it and core RCM. I've written to GA about creating a special sticky thread to list the submods - if he agrees, I'll just list both the RCM and your submod separately and then we won't have problems with people  confusing one for another.

It's the game mechanic that is bugged - with the spears you need space so you can trust - the longer the spear the greater the distance, but the AI is always trying to get as close as possible and so it can't use the spears as intended.

Spearmen work wonderfully under RCM (I'm currently running a Dale campaign and they're the main component of my army, so I know what I'm talking about). Are you sure you didn't accidentally tweak something, which spoiled them?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: GondorKnight on February 25, 2012, 06:36:02 AM
It's not the space that matters; it the SPEED.
The higher the speed the cutting edge goes, the higher the damage is.
Polearm and mainstream weapons cannot be balanced in speed with a same formula.

Using RCM, my Eket become a epic brawling weapon. Now it really acts as a Personal Defense Weapon or for up close and personal.
(Which the AI loves a lot, and hoist by their own petard by charging into effective range)

EDIT: Well, I remembered something- Hope you got GA's release and put the 'updates' on.
Because the combat system is reworked in RCM- if you left the module.ini you're going to have OP/UP units.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: hayate666 on February 25, 2012, 01:32:44 PM
No bug, but a gameplay issue I noticed: when I'm playing a melee infantry faction it's too hard to buy decent armor.

As dwarves I'm fighting really large battles, but all of my troops have better armor then I do. There are no mid tier armors that are affordable and effective. I can do little but stand behind my own troops in a basic tunic while everyone walks around with far better armor. It's really killing the epic fantasy mood for me.

Don't get me wrong, the well made top tier stuff should still be expensive and feel as a accomplishment to buy, but this is a bit extreme.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: GondorKnight on February 25, 2012, 09:01:59 PM
Just a few words: are you using the 'offical' RCM or the tweaked one by Gorthag?
Because it seems to be okay for me with the offical RCM.
I now have 14xxxx RC in Gondor with my Gondor noble. lol
Once you get past the starting, you're going to have way too much scrap to be useful- it took quite some time for me to ride around and leave all the troops in Minas Tirith to sell everything.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 26, 2012, 02:08:56 AM
Quote
No bug, but a gameplay issue I noticed: when I'm playing a melee infantry faction it's too hard to buy decent armor.

As dwarves I'm fighting really large battles, but all of my troops have better armor then I do. There are no mid tier armors that are affordable and effective. I can do little but stand behind my own troops in a basic tunic while everyone walks around with far better armor. It's really killing the epic fantasy mood for me.

Don't get me wrong, the well made top tier stuff should still be expensive and feel as a accomplishment to buy, but this is a bit extreme.

I've made the dwarven and the elven armours more expensive than the rest, as their weight is half the normal + that they give more armor, to represent their crafting mastery.
I'll look at their prices again and i might make their cost to use the same formula as the others and the weight will be just a bonus for playing this race ;) .

Quote
EDIT: Well, I remembered something- Hope you got GA's release and put the 'updates' on.
Because the combat system is reworked in RCM- if you left the module.ini you're going to have OP/UP units.

Yes - using the RCM module.ini, but forgot to put it the archive with the items. Just changed damage_interrupt_attack_treshold, as using 0 in the original RCM module, makes AI at disadvantage - ex. heavy armored Gondorian knight fighting 3 snaga orcs with sticks - due to the changed armor  and dmg values, the knight suffer no dmg most of the time but he constantly "stagger" and can't make a hit at all, so in the end he got killed after quite some time. Not realistic at all.

Quote
How about creating a separate thread for your submode, where you would describe it and provide download links? That way we can avoid the confusion between it and core RCM. I've written to GA about creating a special sticky thread to list the submods - if he agrees, I'll just list both the RCM and your submod separately and then we won't have problems with people  confusing one for another.

Good idea. I didn't do it in the first place, as I didn't want  to flood the forum with new treads, but now i see it'll be better not to cause confusion.

Quote
Spearmen work wonderfully under RCM (I'm currently running a Dale campaign and they're the main component of my army, so I know what I'm talking about). Are you sure you didn't accidentally tweak something, which spoiled them?

I did changes to spears - removed from those intended to trust the Overswing capability and switched dmg from Cut to Pierce lowering it by 10 - the base spear in RCM is dealing 35 Cut dmg changed to 25 Pierce.
Also i allowed them to be used with Shields, as many were only 2H intended.
The only real thing that could make them less effective is the lowered dmg, but I don't see a point, as the P dmg does 2x more dmg to armored troops than the C, so in fact they should me much more effective.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 26, 2012, 07:44:56 AM
ex. heavy armored Gondorian knight fighting 3 snaga orcs with sticks - due to the changed armor  and dmg values, the knight suffer no dmg most of the time but he constantly "stagger" and can't make a hit at all, so in the end he got killed after quite some time. Not realistic at all.

No, it would play out a little differently. If the knight doesn't have weak spots, where armor can be penetrated with a stick, he would definitely win the fight - from time to time he would be able to make a swing and that would probably be a killing blow to one of the snagas. If the knight does have weak spots, he might get killed, but that would be realistic.

That said, tweaking the staggering parameter should be an interesting experiment, but it should be done very cautiously IMO. "Staggering" is very important for the dynamics of mass combat. For example, imagine an armored knight (real, not in game) being attacked by a guy with a large stick. Chances are, the knight would just shrug the attack off and kill the guy. Now imagine the same situation with 30 stick guys. Would the knight be able to shrug their attacks off just as easy? I doubt it bigtime. But this is exactly what would happen in M&B if you have raised the "staggering" threshold. One knight would be able to kill a hundred snagas single-handedly whithout even being interrupted by their hits - a decidedly unrealistic result. Unfortunately, the engine does not model this in an entirely realistic fashion, so we have to make do with it and find some compromise. IIRC, Ron (the author of RCM) left the attack interruption threshold at 0 on purpose, as a way to model mass combat, which is prevalent in TLD, correctly.

I did changes to spears - removed from those intended to trust the Overswing capability and switched dmg from Cut to Pierce lowering it by 10 - the base spear in RCM is dealing 35 Cut dmg changed to 25 Pierce.
Also i allowed them to be used with Shields, as many were only 2H intended.
The only real thing that could make them less effective is the lowered dmg, but I don't see a point, as the P dmg does 2x more dmg to armored troops than the C, so in fact they should me much more effective.

Maybe the player was fighting unarmored opponents?

Why did you switch the spears to pierce, BTW? They're not armor-piercing weapons whichever way you look at them.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Merlkir on February 26, 2012, 07:58:47 AM
Quote
They're not armor-piercing weapons whichever way you look at them.

A spear is not an armor piercing weapon? Surely you jest.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: GondorKnight on February 26, 2012, 09:57:06 AM
Better to scale the damage rather than plain -10 pts, Gorthag.
IMO the threshold should be >0 - at least it do something, that it would interrupt you.
If that even doesn't make you feel a thing (thus the 0!) then why you will stop your action?

Currently I have mine set at 1, personal changes.

And then I wonder the armour system- RCM has the 'percentage decrease' all 0, while the 'straight decrease' are changed...
How the system calculates exactly? Trying to make some sense out of it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: hayate666 on February 26, 2012, 10:04:23 AM
@ Gondor Knight: I was using the "unofficial" one. 

I think the threshold should remain 0, because it is impossible to not feel anything when somebody is beating you. I can wear armor all I want, but getting hit hard with a couple of wooden clubs will affect my balance and ability to keep upright, even if the only thing they manage to do is tackle me.

Please, don't change damage types of weapons and things like threshold too much, if at all. Getting mobbed by 10 orcs with sticks should be a stunlock until death. I want armor to matter a lot versus most weapons. I want it to remain the RCM I know and love instead of an unneeded alteration by someone else.

I think you should look at the stats (pierce vs cut) Ron provided in terms of gameplay/realism.

The idea of having really high cut damage is that having a lot of armor on you really matters versus that type of weapon (which is kind of the point of RCM). 35 pierce would be way too high versus armored opponents, but 20 pierce wouldn't accurately represent the damage versus an unarmored opponent.

I remember when I tested the first instances of RCM for another mod (Onin no ran and native) that pierce was meant for those few weapons that obliterated armor, instead of being merely effective versus them. The downside would be that they were poorer choices versus lightly armored opponents and the damage would be lower.

 Think things like heavy axes that would wedge through and heavily dent armor (which would provide all new kinds of broken bones, but not do a lot extra when someone isn't wearing anything deformable). Same story for blunt, but which weapons are supposed to be blunt is a lot more obvious. You can't say that for spears.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 26, 2012, 10:41:19 AM
A spear is not an armor piercing weapon? Surely you jest.

No-no-no, I most certainly do not, as the notion of generic spear being an armor-piercing weapon rapes all my knowledge of military history. Seriously. Let's even forget about plate armor, how is a spear an armor-piercing weapon against a mail hauberk? A lance in a mounted charge, or a spear/pike against such a charge - yes, that can be potent, but a spear in simple infantry melee? It can only be thrust, which means no leverage, any kind of swung weapon packs more punch simply because of this. Any other kind of polearm is either better or similar to spear in this regard and any armor-piercing hand weapon (like mace, or warpick, or even a battle axe) is better, as they still benefit from being swung while being specifically designed to penetrate armor. Admittedly, a spearhead can be designed in a fashion that would enhance its armor piercing capability against certain types of armor, but it would still fare worse then any kind of specialized armor piercing weapon.

Try to think of yourself in a position where you would have to attack an armored 15-th century genderme - what would you take, a spear or a halberd, warhammer, warpick or somesuch? What if it was a William the Conqueror-style mailed knight - would you take a spear against him, or a Danish axe, or even a hand-held battle axe with narrow blade?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Merlkir on February 26, 2012, 10:52:08 AM
Considering we're talking TLD-era - thus mail, yes spear is a mail piercing weapon. (as piercing as any other I could think of)

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131 (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131)

Scroll down to the poleaxe thrusting test. I imagine using a spear would yield a similar result. I don't think spear would have been such a favoured weapon if it couldn't pierce mail. And really - its main use is to thrust in a straight line with your full weight behind a sharp point, it doesn't get much better than that.

Many of these tests show surprisingly different results depending on blade profile, yes. But quite often even if no links are broken, you can see fairly significant damage through them, piercing damage, not blunt.

edit: heh, reading it again, what exactly is "armour piercing"? Because yes, I'm not saying a spear will run you through if you're wearing mail with some padding. That said, there are documented cases of this happening by lances. So yeah, it's about the force used, but spear is one of the more piercing weapons out there.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 26, 2012, 11:20:19 AM
Considering we're talking TLD-era - thus mail, yes spear is a mail piercing weapon.

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131 (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131)

Scroll down to the poleaxe thrusting test. I imagine using a spear would yield a similar result. I don't think spear would have been such a favoured weapon if it couldn't pierce mail. And really - its main use is to thrust in a straight line with your full weight behind a sharp point, it doesn't get much better than that.

No, a spear would do significantly worse then a poleaxe, as the poleaxe head is heavier, hence the force of the strike is bigger.  Apart from that, a spear with the spearhead like the poleaxe spike in the test you link to would be a) specially designed to specifically pierce mail armor (thus not a generic spear of which we're talking about), b) inferior to the normal leaf-shaped one, because it would cause significantly less damaging wounds against any kind of non-mail armor. Finally, and this is probably the most important point - the penetration pictured in this test was obviously achieved by using the polearm with both hands. This is not an efficient way to use spears on the battlefield (and not the way most troops use them in TLD), as any other polearm is better then the spear when used with both hands, while only a small subset of spear-like polearms can be used efficiently with one hand.

A regular leaf-shaped spear used with one hand would be unlikely to come anywhere near the results of the poleaxe, the latter being a true anti-armor weapon. The results would probably be more like the ones in sword-test - penetration without breaking the mail itself. While this obviously means that the spear can damage someone mail-clad (and neither I, nor the spear damage set to Cut in RCM, portrays it otherwise), it does not become a specialized armor-piercing weapon because of it. Some kind of specialized armor piercing spear might be, like this one here - http://www.faganarms.com/rare-mahdist-armor-piercing-spear-09-758.aspx - but I doubt we should think of troops in TLD as being equipped with these. It would be far more probable and logical for them to be equipped with regular leaf-shaped spearheads. Besides, the artwork in game actually shows these leaf-shaped spearheads for all types of spears, nothing of the armor-piercing sort (a geek like Ron would probably notice an armor-piercing one, BTW).

EDIT:
edit: heh, reading it again, what exactly is "armour piercing"? Because yes, I'm not saying a spear will run you through if you're wearing mail with some padding. That said, there are documented cases of this happening by lances. So yeah, it's about the force used, but spear is one of the more piercing weapons out there.

As I've said, it's probably about as piercing as a sword thrust, if used in a regular one-handed fashion.

As for the armor piercing weapons, I can provide a good example - bodkin arrowhead. Being very narrow, it has better armor penetrating capabilities, but it is actually less efficient in terms of damage to human body then a regular leaf-shaped arrowhead. If we were trying to model them in TLD, we would probably set bodkins to Pierce and regular arrows to Cut to represent this effect.

IMO the threshold should be >0 - at least it do something, that it would interrupt you.
If that even doesn't make you feel a thing (thus the 0!) then why you will stop your action?

Because an armored warrior can take many hits that would not damage him (apart from scratches or minor bruises), however they would impend his movements. Case in point - French knights marching against the English line at Agincourt. The hail of arrows did not do significant damage to the heavily armed troops, but it impeded their movement and contributed greatly to them being exhausted by the time melee started. Another case in point - separated riot policemen being overrun by a mob. A mob cannot harm the policemen in armor right away, but they can impede him from doing anything and they can get to his vulnerable parts eventually.

I'm the first to admit that M&B represents this aspect of combat rather crudely, but I think it would be more realistic to leave the threshold at 0, then to raise it. Of course, this is totally a matter of personal choice, I'm only talking about how the base version of RCM should look like. After all, we can all tweak our own versions whichever way we want.

BTW, how has mass combat become with the threshold at 1? Are heavily armored troops significantly buffed because of this?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 26, 2012, 11:46:48 AM
Quote
Please, don't change damage types of weapons and things like threshold too much, if at all. Getting mobbed by 10 orcs with sticks should be a stunlock until death. I want armor to matter a lot versus most weapons. I want it to remain the RCM I know and love instead of an unneeded alteration by someone else.

1. I agree at the situation with the 10 orcs, but i was talking about s'thing it did happened in my game, with 3 of my orcs beating a heavy armoured and armed with sword and a shield soldier during daylight(orcs are weaker) and i just watched to see what happen - he died because orcs were non stop interupting his attacks with their puny 1h wooden sticks, doing dmg only with lucky hits for 1-2 points. If the dmg threshold was set to 1(as it's now), i don't think this would have happened as most of the hits wouldn't made him stagger and he needed just 3 or 4 hits to take the 3 orcs down.
2. Armour will matter - i'm not doing drastic changes. I already like RCM as it is, but i just feel some things are not quite right and I redo them. Testing will say if these changes are for good of for worse.
The fact is that I'm not taking these numbers randomly - f.e. armours - I've made a formula with very similar results to RCM's armor stats. Most of the time there are only 1-2 points dif and s'where there are none. But there are some cases with bigger dif, prob from Ron not seeing s'thing or typing mistakes - today I decided to look through all the armours as i haven't did this before. This means open every single armour in brf and calculate it's stats. As i said most of them were fine, but I'll give 1 example - I started with the dwarves, as you said they lack "middle" armors, so you play with s'thing that have around 15-18 body 5-10 leg armour or 50+body and 20+ leg witch costs a fortune. Tweaked their prices, but when i opened the brf i noticed s'thing smelly - the dwarven tunics(Iron and Erebor) give 14/15 body and 6 legs and you have pad over tunic giving 18/8 - original RCM. Now i won't go deep in the armours, but reinforced pad armour(as the one in the TLD files) with thick clothes(this tunic) under it is pretty good defence - it can stop some cutting blows and arrows depending on the distance and the power of the shot/blow. So +3/2 armour for reinforced pad covering the whole body and upper legs over only tunic is not realistic at all. This was probably a mistake so i fixed it.
3. If you don't like my tweaks you can always replace the file with the original RCM or the original TLD one and continue your save, as it's savegame compitable ;).

Quote
Better to scale the damage rather than plain -10 pts, Gorthag.

It is scaled ;). Those ~25 Pierce dmg for spears are already tested a lot - my other favourite mod except TLD is 1257AD which uses RCM(or similar or tweaked version, not sure ATM). It has similar armour and weapon stats and the spears are working fine, wielded by troops with good stats. The spears in it are around
the numbers i wrote with Piercing dmg.

Quote
IMO the threshold should be >0 - at least it do something, that it would interrupt you.
If that even doesn't make you feel a thing (thus the 0!) then why you will stop your action?

Indeed. I think the same. There is a point in
Quote
I think the threshold should remain 0, because it is impossible to not feel anything when somebody is beating you. I can wear armor all I want, but getting hit hard with a couple of wooden clubs will affect my balance and ability to keep upright, even if the only thing they manage to do is tackle me.
, but there are other factors too - the most important is adrenaline - it's proven that under stress from death, ppl act quite differently - they become faster, stronger and even might not notice heavy injuries.

Quote
Currently I have mine set at 1, personal changes.

I think this is the best value too, but haven't got time to test it yet. Do you have any observations?

Quote
They're not armor-piercing weapons whichever way you look at them.

A spear is not an armor piercing weapon? Surely you jest.

I hope you won't say that arrows are not AP too :P.
Before you mention it - yes i know there are several different arrowhead and medieval archers carried at least few dif types with them and that some of them are much better at AP, but still....Every pointy sharp metal object made for killing is much better in AP(have better chance to penetrate armour) than all sharp cutting metal objects made for killing ;).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 26, 2012, 11:56:47 AM
Please, don't change damage types of weapons and things like threshold too much, if at all. Getting mobbed by 10 orcs with sticks should be a stunlock until death. I want armor to matter a lot versus most weapons. I want it to remain the RCM I know and love instead of an unneeded alteration by someone else.

The regular RCM is updated and supported, and it will continue to be. Grothag's version is a separate submod based on RCM, so you can always choose whichever submod you prefer. I, for one, stick with the RCM, though I'm interested in how Grothag's changes would play out in mass combat.

I hope you won't say that arrows are not AP too :P.
Before you mention it - yes i know there are several different arrowhead and medieval archers carried at least few dif types with them and that some of them are much better at AP, but still....Every pointy sharp metal object made for killing is much better in AP(have better chance to penetrate armour) than all sharp cutting metal objects made for killing ;).

You're very wrong here. A "sharp cutting" halberd, poleaxe, glaive, bill or any other "sharp cutting" polearm is ten times better against heavy armor then "pointy sharp" polearms. Admittedly, this comes mostly from the huge leverage that a swing with two-handed polearm provides - it just beats opponents into pulp, cut or no cut (though it can cut through too). If both weapons are held in one hand, a narrow-bladed battle axe would probably do better against mail then a spear, at least, a regular leaf-shaped spear of the type we see in TLD, and a mace or warpick/warhammer would certainly do better. You shouldn't equate "sharp and pointy" with "piercing", these aren't the same at all. BTW, I think Ron has discussed this issue somewhere in the middle of this thread. And hayate666 has a point, when he talks about Pierce damage being left specifically for those weapons that do better then their direct counterparts against heavy armor, but worse against light armor. Like bodkin arrows - if we had to model them, they'd probably be set to Pierce, and regular arrows - to Cut.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 26, 2012, 12:33:57 PM
Quote
Admittedly, a spearhead can be designed in a fashion that would enhance its armor piercing capability against certain types of armor, but it would still fare worse then any kind of specialized armor piercing weapon.

Agreed. But bear in mind 2 things - the spear(and it's variations like pikes) is the most widely used weapon from ancient times till 20th century. 1st because it's much easier and cheaper to make a spear than a sword/sabre etc. and 2nd it's a lot easier to use.
During this time armour non stop developed, bit never put aside the use of spears. There is no doubt that every specialized weapon for AP will be better(like a war pick), but spears are effective as well.

Quote
Case in point - French knights marching against the English line at Agincourt. The hail of arrows did not do significant damage to the heavily armed troops, but it impeded their movement and contributed greatly to them being exhausted by the time melee started.

Arrows done their part in it indeed - killed most of the mounts of the heavily armoured knights, but couldn't impair the movement of the already footed knights.
One of the famous battles and as such with so many legends. Heavily muddy terrain+narrow path + heavy armour in those circumstances = defeat.
History knows many battles like this, which are not so famous sadly.

Quote
Try to think of yourself in a position where you would have to attack an armored 15-th century genderme - what would you take, a spear or a halberd, warhammer, warpick or somesuch? What if it was a William the Conqueror-style mailed knight - would you take a spear against him, or a Danish axe, or even a hand-held battle axe with narrow blade?

TBH really depends on situation - in defence like siege, while on the walls or infront the gate, where you can keep your distance, I'll take the spear anytime before any of the above for sure.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 26, 2012, 12:51:16 PM
Agreed. But bear in mind 2 things - the spear(and it's variations like pikes) is the most widely used weapon from ancient times till 20th century. 1st because it's much easier and cheaper to make a spear than a sword/sabre etc. and 2nd it's a lot easier to use.
During this time armour non stop developed, bit never put aside the use of spears. There is no doubt that every specialized weapon for AP will be better(like a war pick), but spears are effective as well.

Yes, but so is, for example, the axe. And, as I've said before, a narrow-bladed axe would probably be better in terms of its armor-piercing capabilities, because it allows more leverage to be applied while sporting the same narrow hitting edge.

TBH really depends on situation - in defence like siege, while on the walls or infront the gate, where you can keep your distance, I'll take the spear anytime before any of the above for sure.

I was talking about regular infantry melee. If you were meeting a charge in massed formation, a pike would obviously be the most suitable weapon (though a spear might not be, it depends on how long that spear is). In a siege, as well as in field melee, halberd/poleaxe/Danish axe would be best. Don't forget that spears are not very long, the long stuff is called pikes and is an altogether different weapon.

Spears are not, and since very early times haven't been, particularly good or efficient weapons. They're cheap and easy to manufacture though and are quite versatile, useful both in formation and in individual combat. That is what has made them such a popular weapon for millenia, not their perceived efficiency.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Merlkir on February 26, 2012, 01:06:38 PM
So they're cheap, easy to manufacture and versatile, but also not good or efficient? So good weapons are expensive and hard to make? I'm not sure I'd claim a sword, or an axe is a better weapon than a spear. If only for the lack of proper definiton of "better".
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 26, 2012, 01:08:47 PM
Quote
You're very wrong here. A "sharp cutting" halberd, poleaxe, glaive, bill or any other "sharp cutting" polearm is ten times better against heavy armor then "pointy sharp" polearms. Admittedly, this comes mostly from the huge leverage that a swing with two-handed polearm provides - it just beats opponents into pulp, cut or no cut (though it can cut through too). If both weapons are held in one hand, a narrow-bladed battle axe would probably do better against mail then a spear, at least, a regular leaf-shaped spear of the type we see in TLD, and a mace or warpick/warhammer would certainly do better. You shouldn't equate "sharp and pointy" with "piercing", these aren't the same at all. BTW, I think Ron has discussed this issue somewhere in the middle of this thread. And hayate666 has a point, when he talks about Pierce damage being left specifically for those weapons that do better then their direct counterparts against heavy armor, but worse against light armor. Like bodkin arrows - if we had to model them, they'd probably be set to Pierce, and regular arrows - to Cut.

I see your point and i agree with it to some extent - concerning big 2h cutting weapons, for which I don't argue. But there are few things you leave behind:
1. There are a lots of diff armours in the mod - not only heavy ones.
2. There are armours(like the orc ones, but not only) which have a lot of weak spots, which are much more easily reachable with thrusting weapons than with cutting.
3. I want to ask you - if you have a sheet of aluminium for ex. and you want to penetrate it, what would you choose - take s'thing pointy like bodkin or nail or s'thing similar, or you'll take the chopping axe or some big knife(not to thrust with it) ;)

Quote
Don't forget that spears are not very long, the long stuff is called pikes and is an altogether different weapon.

I think you're wrong here or we have dif vision of the word "long" ;). The avarage size would be 2-2.2m for spears
Just remembered - the old wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear)
Spears and pikes are weapons put in the same categoty as they're the same weapon with dif lenght and thus ballanced a little dif. As is short sword and a 2h sword - both are swords ;)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: hayate666 on February 26, 2012, 04:54:34 PM
God, I keep getting "pure" RCM and the tweaks by Grothag mixed up. It would be nice if they had different threads!

@ Grothag

I rather like some of the ideas behind your tweaks and it's good to see you taking feedback seriously. I'll gladly keep using the submod you're producing and giving feedback where needed. I love your idea of calculating armor stats again and that you're looking into mid tier armor for dwarves.

Just be careful with adjusting damage types of weapons, or else you could risk getting away from the spirit of the original! Which would be a shame, since your work is pretty awesome so far.

@ Rene Korda

Good to hear the original will be kept. I've been a huge fan and tester ever since it got first released.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 27, 2012, 12:09:39 AM
So they're cheap, easy to manufacture and versatile, but also not good or efficient? So good weapons are expensive and hard to make? I'm not sure I'd claim a sword, or an axe is a better weapon than a spear. If only for the lack of proper definiton of "better".

Why then go through the hurdles and costs of manufacturing a sword? You can make 5+ spears for the price of one cheap sword, dozens for the price of a masterfully crafted item. It only makes sense if you think you're getting bang for the back, doesn't it? This is simply a matter of efficient investment frontier. And we're talking about a production sector that has existed for thousands of years and about non-specialized weapons (neither spear, nor sword are ones - unlike the warpick, stiletto or bodkin arrows). If the swords were not more efficient (however general and vague the definition of efficiency is in this context), they would simply fall into disuse.

1. There are a lots of diff armours in the mod - not only heavy ones.
2. There are armours(like the orc ones, but not only) which have a lot of weak spots, which are much more easily reachable with thrusting weapons than with cutting.
3. I want to ask you - if you have a sheet of aluminium for ex. and you want to penetrate it, what would you choose - take s'thing pointy like bodkin or nail or s'thing similar, or you'll take the chopping axe or some big knife(not to thrust with it) ;)

1. Lighter armors are more similar to human body in terms of their protective capabilities, I don't think Pierce should be used for the weapons, that are good against them, Cut with high damage should.
2. A polearm held in one hand (and even in both hands) is clumsy and LESS able to find weak spots then more easy to wield weapons. Generally, the shorter the weapon, the better the user's control over it, hence easier to find weak spots. There is also a matter of weapon's length, but this is accounted in M&B by a separate parameter.
3. I'd take something with narrow hitting edge (which the spear has) and possibility of leverage to be applied (which the spear lacks) - a warpick, for example. If I'd have to choose between the two, I'd choose leverage any day. This would lead me to choosing halberd or poleaxe over spear as armor-piercing weapons - a historically validated choice.


@ hayate666

There will be some changes to the "Important submods" sticky thread, after which the up-to-date download links to RCM will be present there, so that there is no confusion when people start searching the RCM thread for them. Download links to Grothag submod will be put there too, after he creates a separate thread for his submod.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 27, 2012, 02:25:18 AM
Quote
3. I'd take something with narrow hitting edge (which the spear has) and possibility of leverage to be applied (which the spear lacks) - a warpick, for example. If I'd have to choose between the two, I'd choose leverage any day. This would lead me to choosing halberd or poleaxe over spear as armor-piercing weapons - a historically validated choice.

There you go - you said it. I'm not arguing here that there are a lot more effective weapons than spears, as i said earlier - i just say it can do the job to some extent. So I have spears with around 25P(and little slower speed) - one of the cheapest weapons, and better weapons like warpicks with around 35P(with better speed), which are much more effective indeed, but at higher price - realism and balance ;).

P.S. I'll make a new thread and will update it with the latest items shortly.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 27, 2012, 02:34:19 AM
How you model weapons is ultimately your choice, of course. My point was that the spear is not relatively efficient against heavily-armored opponents while being simultaneously relatively less efficient against lightly-armored opponents - it isn't analogous to warpick or bodkin arrows. If you're making it Pierce, you're kind of mixing it all up - why not make swords or daggers Pierce then? I guess it all depends on what you want to model by Pierce-Cut distinction. Ron's idea, AFAIK, was to model weapons akin to warpick and bodkin arrows - relatively efficient against armor, relatively inefficient against absence of armor - with Pierce, while putting everything else to Cut. I find it to be pretty logical, that's why I asked why were you changing the spears to Pierce in the first place.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 27, 2012, 04:57:33 AM
It seems we were talking in a little bit different directions ;).
I made them P, 'cause the spears in fact pirce things not cut trough them - well in fact it can do both depending on the shaft, but the weight and thus the power of the strike is at the point of the spear .

Quote
If you're making it Pierce, you're kind of mixing it all up - why not make swords or daggers Pierce then?

I did. For thrusting with them.

I like Ron's idea, but for this I prefer to make things more logical, even if i have to leave small part of the realism (only small though - i'm a realism geek too :) ) - for this game mechanics.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 27, 2012, 05:18:32 AM
I see. Well, having two realism-oriented (but closely related, so that they're balanced in a broadly similar fashion) submods is better than having just one whichever way you look at it. Let a hundred flowers bloom and all that stuff:)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Arkerless on February 27, 2012, 09:32:38 PM
At first I was taken aback by how Ron did that, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes.

Effectively the engine parses 'pierce' as equivelant to 'armor-piercing.' Not just 'thrusting.'  Spears are thrusting weapons, but only some of them really have armor-piercing heads.

A broad-head spear should have a fairly high cut value, not a piercing value, on a thrust. The same would be true of most swords, and so on. Only true AP designs should get piercing damage, and they should get significantly LESS raw damage as well - that which goes through armor easily also goes through flesh easily, inflicting less damage in the process.

Also in regards to 0-damage stuns, I too think that it may be slightly overboard at 0. Do fractional values work, i.e. .1 or .2 or .3? I think something in that region might be optimal if it's possible, while having a dozen guys beating on you should shut you down, at the same time a hit that you truly dont feel through your armor probably shouldnt interrupt your swing.



Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 28, 2012, 12:40:17 AM
Also in regards to 0-damage stuns, I too think that it may be slightly overboard at 0. Do fractional values work, i.e. .1 or .2 or .3? I think something in that region might be optimal if it's possible, while having a dozen guys beating on you should shut you down, at the same time a hit that you truly dont feel through your armor probably shouldnt interrupt your swing.

I'm afraid an absolutely realistic solution is impossible here. With the parameter both at 0 and at 1 (I don't think fractional values are possible) you would still get somewhat unrealistic situations, albeit those situations would be different.

I would actually still like to hear about how massed combat changed after this parameter shift from people who changed the stun-lock threshold.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 28, 2012, 03:34:09 AM
Quote
(I don't think fractional values are possible)

The game counts only whole numbers when calculating dmg, so no fractional values possible I'm afraid.
I've seen fractional values possible only in weight in M&B.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: hayate666 on February 28, 2012, 05:43:14 AM
@ Arkerless

That's exactly the point I've been trying to make.  :green: I still remember this discussion from a few years back when RCM was first released and people were annoyed with the introduction of cut damage for arrows and spears.

@ Rene Korda

I haven't tried setting the damage treshold higher, but it's pretty easy to guess at the effect when standing in a group of tribal orcs whilst wearing heavy armor. About 5 - 7 out of 10 hits will do 0 damage, so setting the treshold to 1 will make it a whole lot easier then it should be imho.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 28, 2012, 05:50:48 AM
Quote
I haven't tried setting the damage treshold higher, but it's pretty easy to guess at the effect when standing in a group of tribal orcs whilst wearing heavy armor. About 7 out of 10 hits will do 0 damage, so setting the treshold to 1 will make it a whole lot easier then it should be imho.

But it's not right as it is with 0, as if you have 2-3 weak enemies with fast weapons vs 1 heavy armoured and armed soldier, he's not able to swing at all although he recieves no dmg most of the time.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: GondorKnight on February 28, 2012, 07:20:54 AM
Okay, after the change for quite some time (with Gondor still lol), I observe something from the threshold change.
(Although I buffed up the projectiles damage^speed scale)
When they move in for the melee, the high rank Gondor troops (Standard and Vets) make short work of the lower tier orcs.
And that means clean cut with little loss.

On the other hand, the Khand axe-wields can do some real sxxt- times are that they wipe the Gondor force clear (only to get mowed by Rangers lol).
Even they don't clear the place, they still do real damage, capable of striking down quite some units.

I have less damage for troops as I don't like them to get killed en masse, but still, people will die, and you can't really change that.

For my 'experiment' mentioned, I always group the infantry in shield wall and advance in paces. And they do much better.

Going to test some more with full damage.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on February 28, 2012, 07:32:40 AM
@ Arkerless

That's exactly the point I've been trying to make.  :green: I still remember this discussion from a few years back when RCM was first released and people were annoyed with the introduction of cut damage for arrows and spears.

@ Rene Korda

I haven't tried setting the damage treshold higher, but it's pretty easy to guess at the effect when standing in a group of tribal orcs whilst wearing heavy armor. About 5 - 7 out of 10 hits will do 0 damage, so setting the treshold to 1 will make it a whole lot easier then it should be imho.

I agree with you and I also remember Ron saying that this issue has already been discussed and tested pretty extensively, with the final conclusion being that 0 threshold models reality better, then anything else. That's why it should be kept as base version for RCM, IMO. It is very easy to reset anyway, if the player wants to.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Arkerless on February 29, 2012, 09:57:55 AM
but I doubt we should think of troops in TLD as being equipped with these. It would be far more probable and logical for them to be equipped with regular leaf-shaped spearheads. Besides, the artwork in game actually shows these leaf-shaped spearheads for all types of spears, nothing of the armor-piercing sort (a geek like Ron would probably notice an armor-piercing one, BTW).

He did, in fact. Look at the handful he left piercing - dunlanders have a few pokers that have very low damage but it is piercing damage, because they have AP profiles.

Quote
As for the armor piercing weapons, I can provide a good example - bodkin arrowhead. Being very narrow, it has better armor penetrating capabilities, but it is actually less efficient in terms of damage to human body then a regular leaf-shaped arrowhead. If we were trying to model them in TLD, we would probably set bodkins to Pierce and regular arrows to Cut to represent this effect.

And due to the fact that M&B doesnt let you set the value by arrow, but only by bow, there is no option left but to treat all arrows as broadheads rather than bodkins.


Quote
I'm the first to admit that M&B represents this aspect of combat rather crudely, but I think it would be more realistic to leave the threshold at 0, then to raise it. Of course, this is totally a matter of personal choice, I'm only talking about how the base version of RCM should look like. After all, we can all tweak our own versions whichever way we want.

BTW, how has mass combat become with the threshold at 1? Are heavily armored troops significantly buffed because of this?

I will try that myself when I have time to play again next.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Gopblin on February 29, 2012, 02:26:58 PM
Playing RCM as archer, love it, one thing though:

Do I understand correctly that the bows having really low base damage makes Power Draw much less powerful?
E.g. an elven bow with 9 base damage and really high power draw (say 6) would only give you ~7 extra cutting damage for sinking ~12 extra points into STR? Or do I misunderstand the way this is calculated?

Also, I think a way to introduce AP arrows would be to rebalance the bows/arrows a bit to where bows have higher damage and arrows lower. E.g. if bows had base 20 damage and arrows had an average of +20, Power Draw would be a bit more effective, but *more importantly* you could now introduce a bow with say base 3p damage. That way, by choosing a bow you'd switch between doing 40c damage or 23p damage, which is pretty realistic as bodkins don't do nearly as much soft tissue damage as broadheads.

Best wishes,
Daniel
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Arkerless on February 29, 2012, 02:58:44 PM
Playing RCM as archer, love it, one thing though:

Do I understand correctly that the bows having really low base damage makes Power Draw much less powerful?
E.g. an elven bow with 9 base damage and really high power draw (say 6) would only give you ~7 extra cutting damage for sinking ~12 extra points into STR? Or do I misunderstand the way this is calculated?

I think you misunderstand. I think that powerdraw affects bow+arrow damage, not just bow.

The reason the arrows get the damage instead of the bows is because the M&B engine is hardcoded to introduce accuracy penalties increasing as bow damage goes up. So in order to hold accuracy as a constant, the damage needs to be offloaded to arrows and to powerdraw bonuses (by laying out the right PD requirements for the bows.) AFAIK

Quote
Also, I think a way to introduce AP arrows would be to rebalance the bows/arrows a bit to where bows have higher damage and arrows lower. E.g. if bows had base 20 damage and arrows had an average of +20, Power Draw would be a bit more effective, but *more importantly* you could now introduce a bow with say base 3p damage.

But unfortunately you cant. You can make the arrow 3 damage, but the arrow doesnt determine whether it's 3p or 3c or 3b. It's whatever the bow is set to, period. Hardcoded.

Once you understand the limitations Ron works with his work looks even better IMOP.

Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Gopblin on February 29, 2012, 03:24:20 PM
Oh, thanks, that cleared the powerdraw issue.

I think you misunderstand the AP bow idea though: It's not to make a 3p ARROW, but to make a 3p BOW.

You'd have a choice between a 20c bow and a 2p bow, with arrows giving say +20, so final would be a choice between doing 40c damage and 22p damage.

From what you're saying about hardcoded inaccuracy, looks like the "broadhead" bow would be a bit less accurate, but still more accurate than the Native bows, so I don't think that would be a big deal.

And while we're at it, one could also make a 1b bow :)

Best wishes,
Daniel.
Title: Cavalry tactics under RCM
Post by: Rene Korda on February 29, 2012, 05:09:16 PM
As many of you have probably noticed, RCM strongly favors the combined-arms approach to tactics and it has certain rock-paper-scissors characteristics: cavalry cuts down archers of comparable level, archer shoot down infantry, infantry in tight formation cuts down cavalry. An army consisting of only one type of  units tends to be weak in certain aspects (I stress again that we're talking about RCM, not the current native version).

Nevertheless, certain factions - like Rhun, Rohan or Khand - do tempt the player to go for an all-cavalry army, not the least because of the lack of proper foot archers within these factions' forces. I've played with two such cavalry parties, one of Rhun, another of Rohan. The Rhunian party was predictably weak, as having their tattooed butts for armor is not a way to make units strong in pitch combat - at least, this seemed to me to be the reason for Rhunian weakness. The usual scenario for combat is a massive cavalry charge stopped dead in the ranks of enemy infantry, with disastrous results. In fact, I haven't found a way to avoid autocalcing heavily with Rhun, though, admittedly, this can be though of as being "gamey" (I actually think of it as harassing the enemy while avoiding pitched battle - a pretty natural tactic for a light cavalry-based army like Rhun).

Now I'm playtesting Rohan and the results are kind of disturbing. Even though rohirrim cavalry is properly armored, it still sucks massively when faced with a formation of Uruk-hai heavy infantry. This can be thought of as a feature of the game - after all, heavy infantry in tight formation is very dangerous to charging cavalry. On the other hand, this can be thought of as a balance issue - if the player had more efficient control over his cavalry (ability to distinguish commands between skirmishers and melee cavalry and ability to have them charge in a group, not ride through enemy ranks like they do if made to do so through minimap commands), as well as less stupid allied AI, he'd probably be able to mitigate enemy infantry formations. Currently, this issue makes cavalry-based armies unfeasible in RCM, which, in theory, should not happen, as they were present in LotR and in real-world medieval warfare, even at the time when infantry's star was already on the rise.

I'd like to hear what the other players think on the issue. Am I, perhaps, in the wrong here, maybe I miss some tactical possibilities that effectively mitigate it? If not, does something need to be done about this - buffing horses, perhaps? Or maybe it's better to leave it as it is? After all, the gaming experience is already rich in tactical opportunities and cavalry is by no means useless in the game. Let's discuss the issue a bit.
Title: Re: Cavalry tactics under RCM
Post by: vota dc on February 29, 2012, 06:20:20 PM
Cavalry kill without problems archers and infantry with short weapons. Many players complain about warg in fact. Even when enemies use formations there is dismount command and sometimes dismounted cavalry is more effective than infantry.
Dismounted rhun cavalry is better armored than infantry. Of course infantry is better because AI use very well two handed weapons. By the way rhun infantry massacre Dale in the old version: profit until the next where Dale will have a proper armor (well...until tier 5 Rhun will win slimly).
Rhun cavalry also have a problem with infantry: they try to hit them with short falchion. Well soon Rhun won't have falchion anymore for cavalry, just rhun sword and greatsword.

Main problem is that there are few test of pikemen against cavalry since advanced formations don't work in battle test. If you test which pikemen (or which infantry with short weapons...and that would be very bad) are "too effective" against cavalry you will do a great favor, but also keep in mind that pikemen get mowed up easily by dismounted units for the facehug factor.

Faction without proper foot archers are supposed to encourage unit mixing. For example Dunland encourage the employment of Uruk-hai archers. Khand also lack both foot archer and horse archer while Rhun is more self sufficient.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Arkerless on February 29, 2012, 06:34:46 PM
I just installed the updated item_kinds file (thanks for that) and notice a set of bugs from the Ron release that appear to still be in. Shield sizes were (and are) semi-random. Easterling round shield is 50, so is Harondor shield, but Haran model is much larger. Mordor Uruk shield is larger still, yet has a size of 40!

I would fix it myself if I could figure out how to edit this file, sorry.
Title: Re: Cavalry tactics under RCM
Post by: Arkerless on February 29, 2012, 07:04:07 PM
I have to say I still havent gotten a real army up to fight having just finished updating, but I did run a little rohan cavalry last night and it seemed very much like previous version w/RCM, where I did quite well with an all cavalry force, as long as that force was based on Rohan. As an evil player it's quite near impossible - Rhun troops just suck too bad, and it's not all down to their equipment. Khand has to have horse archers, Rhun wont provide many and disappears early, the orcs have no horse-archery and are way too slow, and the men of the south just cannot provide enough recruits to keep up. Plus their horse archers suck too.

I beefed Rhun and fixed some of the other issues, including giving Khand horse archers, and it was doable. Sort of.

But with Rohan? It's great. Your all-cavalry force shouldnt be *fighting* as such very often, of course, you want to try to join other battles with lots of other troops. You move faster on the map so it's easier to do that. Certain maps (particularly in mirkwood) you have to be spamming dismount the moment the map loads up and use your cavalry as infantry - but on other maps they rule.

They charge and die? Well don't let them do that! I usually have them follow me till in sight of the enemy, mark a spot for infantry and archers to group (as they lose their horses they will try to grab that bit of high ground I mark out and hold it) and then either lead them through the enemy and regroup them on the other side for the next charge, or give the charge order and then stop and take out a few with arrows while they charge, then order them to follow while you ride off at an angle to regroup. Either way you dont expect one charge to break them, you have to keep rallying them and reforming and doing it again. After a few failed charges you will be leading a mixed group, with the foot forming up on a bit of highground you can lead the remaining cavalry around it (and through the enemies) repeatedly until their morale goes down enough to have everyone charge for the finish.

EDIT to add that the improvements to the interface you mention WOULD RULE and I have dreamed of them many times, but I dont think you can mod that in.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Arkerless on February 29, 2012, 08:57:48 PM
Oh, thanks, that cleared the powerdraw issue.

I think you misunderstand the AP bow idea though: It's not to make a 3p ARROW, but to make a 3p BOW.

You'd have a choice between a 20c bow and a 2p bow, with arrows giving say +20, so final would be a choice between doing 40c damage and 22p damage.

Well you can just set the 10c shortbow to 10p or 10b if you want to do that. If you are rigging a piece for an NPC in a set scene that will not otherwise be accessible (cannot fall into player hands) then that works fine.

Otherwise you will have players using the 10b bow with elven broadheads to knock out enemies, however, which I think is to be avoided.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on February 29, 2012, 11:47:51 PM
Quote
just installed the updated item_kinds file (thanks for that) and notice a set of bugs from the Ron release that appear to still be in. Shield sizes were (and are) semi-random. Easterling round shield is 50, so is Harondor shield, but Haran model is much larger. Mordor Uruk shield is larger still, yet has a size of 40!

Are you sure you installed the updated items, or you installed the base RCM?

In my submod shields - uruk - 70, rhun - 55, harad shields - big variety - from 55 -120.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on March 01, 2012, 01:58:48 AM
@ Arkerless

Yeah, I have the same stats in both versions. If you could remake them in a realistic fashion (do you know how the length in M&B corresponds to model length,approximately?), it would be absolutely wonderful. We'd make it an official update.
Title: Re: Cavalry tactics under RCM
Post by: Rene Korda on March 01, 2012, 04:27:46 AM
@ Arkerless

Well, that's a load off my back, thank you. I was afraid something was wrong with RCM balance.

On a side note - does every RCM player custom modify troops?:) I guess we'll have to make that rebalanced file at some point.


@ vota_dc

This a purely RCM topic. Under RCM, Dale infantry actually slaughters Rhun, since it is armored and the majority of Rhunians are not. I really don't think native should be discussed here, as current native version doesn't seem to be good in terms of tactical opportunities it offers and since you're changing it totally anyway.
Title: Re: Cavalry tactics under RCM
Post by: hayate666 on March 01, 2012, 05:50:04 AM
As Rohan I noticed that dismount horse archers = dead pikemen. I haven't played Rhun so far, but fighting against them as dwarves can be really hard. Especially the lower tier infantry gets massacred by their horse archers.

As soon as you get infantry that can withstand the hail of arrows you're about to receive it gets to be more in the dwarves' favor, as they will empty their arrows at you and charge in afterwards. The charge part is usually what kills them. I speed this up by mixing archers of my own so they can shoot the horses of Rhun.

The only thing that stays really dangerous is the heavily armored horseman Rhun possesses. It can usually cut through 2 - 3 dwarves before his horse being cut down.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: hayate666 on March 01, 2012, 06:21:21 AM
How do you edit stats like that? I have no idea how to do that and I'd like to help changing stats.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Dwarf on March 01, 2012, 07:30:40 AM
I was using a strong bow with barbed arrows and head shot Isengard uruks for 0 damage. Couched lance (lance does 40 cut damage) also does 0-1 damage as well.  Those uruks must be wearing mithril, they have 60 armour. :o :o :o
Title: Re: Cavalry tactics under RCM
Post by: Arkerless on March 01, 2012, 09:54:41 AM
As Rohan I noticed that dismount horse archers = dead pikemen. I haven't played Rhun so far, but fighting against them as dwarves can be really hard. Especially the lower tier infantry gets massacred by their horse archers.

As soon as you get infantry that can withstand the hail of arrows you're about to receive it gets to be more in the dwarves' favor, as they will empty their arrows at you and charge in afterwards. The charge part is usually what kills them. I speed this up by mixing archers of my own so they can shoot the horses of Rhun.

As a dwarf I had a ton of fun running a mix of dwarf infantry and elven archers. Utterly devastating against Rhun in particular.  Even with massive numbers, their horse archers cant compete with elves at distance, and if they try to charge those dwarves eat them alive.

Quote
The only thing that stays really dangerous is the heavily armored horseman Rhun possesses. It can usually cut through 2 - 3 dwarves before his horse being cut down.

Unfortunately there are never many of those though.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Arkerless on March 01, 2012, 10:27:09 AM
@ Arkerless

Yeah, I have the same stats in both versions. If you could remake them in a realistic fashion (do you know how the length in M&B corresponds to model length,approximately?), it would be absolutely wonderful. We'd make it an official update.

I am sorry I have never figured out how to get item editting to work so I have no idea how to fix that.

Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on March 01, 2012, 11:27:21 AM
http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=567 - here's a tool for that.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Arkerless on March 01, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=567 - here's a tool for that.

Thanks I think I tried that one before but I am not sure, I will try again after work.

I have no idea how to do anything with .brfs either though. The only thing I got working so far is troop editting.

Another question since you seem to know your tools, is there some way to convert these files into a spreadsheet format or anything more wieldy?

Title: Re: Cavalry tactics under RCM
Post by: Gopblin on March 01, 2012, 12:40:30 PM
When talking about light/medium cavalry against infantry, the battle of Snipe's Field comes to mind.

~60,000 Russian militia, mostly foot, fought ~120,000 Tatars, mostly cavalry, and held the line. When the Tatars were exhausted, Russian heavy cavalry charged their flank and routed them.

Heck, the Russians did the same thing to Teutonic knights in the Battle of the Ice a century or so prior. Russian militia held the charge of the knights, and when they were stalled, Russian cavalry charged their flanks and routed them into broken ice.

The idea that cavalry dominates infantry comes mostly from lack of professional, highly motivated infantry in Europe during the dark ages. In fact, there aren't many instances when a cavalry charge can break a tight infantry formation. Cavalry is needed for quick maneuvering, surprise attacks on scattered infantry, flanking and pursuing.

So RCM is quite realistic - Native isn't.

Best wishes,
Daniel.
Title: Re: Cavalry tactics under RCM
Post by: Rene Korda on March 01, 2012, 12:43:17 PM
You do have a point, Daniel. Anyway, the issue's been resolved (RCM does allow cavalry to be efficient), though we can always discuss cavalry tactics in this thread (I happen to love discussing tactics:) ).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on March 01, 2012, 12:45:45 PM
It's probably feasible to write a script that would convert them back and force, but I haven't seen one.
Title: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: Rene Korda on March 01, 2012, 04:33:47 PM
Recently there has been a series of discussions among RCM players active in the forum, which all seem to point out the necessity of tailoring the troops file to RCM. For this to be feasible, certain baseline standard for the stats has to be thought out, starting from which they would be determined for each unit. This standard basically has to outline three things for each parameter:

1. Certain set point of reference. I.e. "a 3-rd tier evil human melee troop has strength 15" or something like that.
2. Dispersion. How high and how low we can set the parameter, i.e. "strength can be as low as 5 for lowly snaga and as high as 30 for elven lord".
3. Simple incrementing rules. Preferably, these should be tied to a level plus some factions-specific tweak should be applied, to fine-tune the faction differences.

The end goal is pretty clear - to make the game more enjoyable and more finely balanced in line with real-world combat and Tolkien lore, while retaining the realistic approach of RCM.

I see two ways of how the aforementioned standard can be found. The first approach is simply to infer it from the current troop file. We have played with it pretty extensively and know how it works in the game, which would allow us not to make blind shots when designing the new troop file and would require significantly less playtesting.

The second approach is to infer the standard from analytic calculations. We  have the formulas and all the necessary numbers to determine how things would play out among certain troops in certain circumstances. This allows us to tie our standard to these situations, i.e. "the standard 3-rd tier orcish stats are such as to allow the orc to kill a standing and non-acting Gondor footsoldier with a hit of a club on his head". This approach is more laborious and requires a team  of dedicated volunteers to be feasible.

Anyway, these are the ideas that I currently have. Before we even think about starting, some discussion has to take place. Please, do post your ideas and opinions. Unfortunately, the submod's author (Ron Losey) hasn't been willing to continue developing it, so sorting these things out falls on us, the players.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ettore53 on March 01, 2012, 04:47:29 PM
I am testing RCM and I saw a problem:  the spy quest is now impossible as there are no more blunt weapons to capture spies.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: The Yogi on March 01, 2012, 05:33:51 PM
Kill their horses and run into them with your horse. :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Dwarf on March 01, 2012, 07:59:00 PM
Kill their horses and run into them with your horse. :)
But what about couch lance doing 0-1 damage? Is my horse broken?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: The Yogi on March 02, 2012, 12:20:57 AM
That's a bit odd- but RCM reduces the couched lance damage, it's set in the .ini file. Still, running at full speed you shouldn't get that little damage. Maybe your horse is lame?
Title: Re: Cavalry tactics under RCM
Post by: The Yogi on March 02, 2012, 12:29:20 AM
The debate on cavalry vs formed infantry has been raging in many gaming forums. There is a strong following of people absolutely wedded to the idea that heavy cavalry with couched lances could reliably shatter squares of foot unless these used massed pole arms like pikes or halberds, heck, even those according to some.

Of course, this is pure fantasy. There is no way you can make even trained warhorses charge en masse into a (to a horse) seemingly solid obstacle, such as a massed body of men. Horses tend to be a bit insanse, and one or two surely will run right into even a pike square (or over a cliff for that matter) but the vast majority will do the sensible thing and just stop. The Legions of Caesar knew this and had no unde trouble repelling cavalry using only their pilas and discipline (of course, cavalry at their time wasn't all that). Only during the middle ages, where for social reasons cavalry was at its top and infantry at its nadir did the heavy horse rule the battlefield, and as soon as infantry got their act together again, it was all over.
Title: Re: Cavalry tactics under RCM
Post by: Grothag on March 02, 2012, 02:00:55 AM
AFAIR, as I haven't really played the mod in around 2 weeks, there is 1 thing that can be corrected - the formations. What i mean is that shield wall with 3 ranks is ???? So if you have ~100 troops placed in shield wall you get 1 very long row with 3 ranks and you get the same with ranks.....just in the first case the troops in the 1st row are forced to be with shield and in the 2nd it's random.
I'm saying this here as it's closely related with how effective cav is against footmen. It would make huge diff, if shield wall is tightly packed formation, as it should be and ranks is the "normal" formation for inf and archers. Countering cav with shield wall  facing the charge, should be highly effective and stop the charge if made with enough good equipped troops.
Title: Re: Cavalry tactics under RCM
Post by: Rene Korda on March 02, 2012, 02:58:15 AM
You can make the formation tighter/looser by pressing F8 or F9 (by default), respectively.
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: Arkerless on March 02, 2012, 03:22:14 AM
If I understand correctly (and quite possibly I dont) the autocalc uses RNG, troop levels, tactics levels of respective commanders, and morale to determine outcome. Also a penalty for evil forces if player is evil. Nothing else?

If this is correct we can leave the autocalc as is and use that as our 'tether' to the main mods game balance. Autocalc battles should continue to behave the same way in both of them, and we should reflect roughly the same balance that the autocalc does on the field.

The next step is to try inferring that baseline from the existing file and see what that gives us I suppose.

Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Arkerless on March 02, 2012, 03:25:41 AM
Probably he's hitting well-armored opponents. I know even at a decent tilt on a decent horse with a decent lance it can be hard to penetrate elf/dwarf type armour.
Title: Re: Cavalry tactics under RCM
Post by: Arkerless on March 02, 2012, 03:29:18 AM
You can but this has little effect.

Being able to take better control of formations would be huge though.
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: Rene Korda on March 02, 2012, 03:31:35 AM
Yeah, of the troops stats only levels are used in autocalc. If we don't touch these, the strategic balance will not be altered.

So we take the first approach? I'm inclined to follow it too. We should start looking for baselines for each parameter then: four attribs, five profs, and the skills: ironflesh, PD, PS, athletics, riding, mounted archery and shield (I think I've listed them all).
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: GondorKnight on March 02, 2012, 03:32:59 AM
IMO, the 'balance' should be based like this:
1st: Lore. 2nd: Realistic. 3rd: Logical common sense.
'Balance' in gaming terms of 'buff' or 'nerf' something just to make it 'balance' should not happen.
The cost and time needed to recruit and train these units should be the limiting factor, but not 'balance' them.

2cents
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: Rene Korda on March 02, 2012, 04:02:13 AM
I agree with you. When I say "balance", I don't mean "equalization". Just polishing up the experience.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Dwarf on March 02, 2012, 04:18:10 AM
Riding a Thengel warhouse (a bit slow) with Rohan Lance(40c) against Isengard Uruk(60 armor).
Merlkir gonna trolololol.  :P
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: GondorKnight on March 02, 2012, 04:32:06 AM
Are we going to have a 'baseline' for each faction/race?
And then plus the different growth on it?
Becuase it would be odd for the unit 'grew' from the last to have less skill or profs and such, like they suddenly forgot their skills and experience.
(Which some reported for the vanilla?)
Title: RCM price rebalancing
Post by: Rene Korda on March 02, 2012, 06:36:37 AM
It's a fact that equipment prices are unbalanced in RCM, which makes many items absolutely useless and limits player choices. Grothag has taken on this in his submod, but his solution is to make equipment very costly for the player, to make him work hard to upgrade. While I can understand this reasoning, I view eqiuipment upgrading as a side-business in TLD, to make the beginning of the game more fun. IMO, by about day 50 the player should be reasonably capable of having the best equipment available. Otherwise, his equipment will be seriously inferior to that of his underlings, which is immersion breaking and distracts the him from fighting the war, which by this time should be the sense and purpose of the playthrough.

I've come up with a very simple way to balance the prices in such a fashion, that would broaden the player's choice and make much more weapons and armor feasible to have, while retaining the "top equipment by day 50" style of playing. The prices are just based directly on the properties of the weapons. Below, I provide the formulas.

Bear in mind, that in actual items file all the numbers below should be halved, so as to mitigate the 200% price handicap in shops. I provide the numbers in the way they would be seen in the game.

Armor:
1 point of body armor costs 50 rp
1 point of leg armor costs 25 rp
1 point of head armor costs 40 rp
(Example: 50 body, 20  legs hauberk will have a price of 3000 rps).

Horses:
Speed+Maneuver+Charge*2+(Armor-10)*50 (if the third term is lower then 0, it is assigned 0 value)

Arrows:
100+(Dmg-30)xQuantity

Bows:
Speed+Missile_Speed+PD_requirement*500

Thrown:
Speed+Missile_Speed+Damage*Quantity

Melee:
Max_Dmg*25*n
n=1.5, if Max_Dmg is Pierce or if any dmg is Blunt, n=1 otherwise

Shields:
Armor*20*(Length/100)

I will probably be making the file with these prices for my own use anyway, but, if the players like it, it can be made the official version. Suggestions, comments and opinions, obviously, are welcome. If any coder would volunteer to make a text parser, which would reset the prices automatically in accordance with these formulas, it would be awesome! This should be very easy, but, apart from statistical modeling in MatLab, I haven't had much coding experience since graduation.
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: Rene Korda on March 02, 2012, 06:38:13 AM
No, I thought about setting it as a certain quality if a certain unit to which all other units (irrespective of their faction) would be calibrated.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on March 02, 2012, 06:40:55 AM
Dunno, just yesterday I lanced Uruk-hai without any problem in exactly the same setup. Are you sure you're doing it right? Also, if you have installed RCM in the middle of your current campaign, you might get glitches like that.

EDIT: Rohan lance has 40 Cut damage, not Pierce in RCM, BTW. You're probably using Grothag's submod, lances are reset to Pierce in it. I suggest you ask Grothag about your problem, if that's the case.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Dwarf on March 02, 2012, 07:28:22 AM
Dunno, just yesterday I lanced Uruk-hai without any problem in exactly the same setup. Are you sure you're doing it right? Also, if you have installed RCM in the middle of your current campaign, you might get glitches like that.

EDIT: Rohan lance has 40 Cut damage, not Pierce in RCM, BTW. You're probably using Grothag's submod, lances are reset to Pierce in it. I suggest you ask Grothag about your problem, if that's the case.
I used the stickied, not Grothag:
Quote
http://www.wupload.com/file/2662242227/RCM_TLD31.rar - the link to current up-to-date RCM version.
http://www.wupload.com/file/2662953992/item_kinds1.txt - you should overwrite the item_kinds1.txt in that version with this file. There were a couple new weapons and armors added and GA forgot to update their values. This file updates them.
http://www.wupload.com/file/2666930792/troops.txt - an optional troop file. It corrects some mistakes and inconsistencies (like 0 Horse Archery skill for some horse archers) and buffs Dale and Rhun a bit.
New campaign, and you are right yes it is cut damage, which makes more sense since 60 armour with 100% absorb should be able to take no damage from 40cut with 2 powerstrike (not sure of the couch multiplier). I was puzzled since pierce should have a 50% AP in the ini file and I should do at least 10 damage(40-(60*0.5)) I'm guessing. The uruks are Isengard not Mordor in case they have different armour. They are arrow proof as well, even head shots since I do around 44 cut damage and they have helms of 60 armour = zero damage.
These are fighting uruks infantry btw, the uruk archers from Isengard I can kill, they have weaker armour.
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: Erhen on March 02, 2012, 08:11:42 AM
Well, here`s my opinion (nubmers are innacurate)
1 tier units:
Strength
Orc (snagas) = 6<
Gundabad orc (stronger than others)=Gnomes(short ones) = 7<
Galadrim(Lothlorien) elfs(elfmix)8<
Elfs of mirkwood(noldor related)/rivendell(avari related), also townsman Gondorians, Harad, Dale, Uruk = 9<
Rohhirim, other gondorians, Umbar, Khand, Dunelanders, Uruk-hai, far Harad =10
Rhun, Beornings, Rivendell humans = 11

Agility
Gnomes, orcs = 8
Uruks, Uruk-hai, Almost all humans = 9
Umbar corsairs, all horsemans = 10
Rivendell scouts = 11
Elves = 14
Title: Re: RCM price rebalancing
Post by: Arkerless on March 02, 2012, 08:45:26 AM
This sounds like a reasonable baseline, but I would shy away from applying it mechanically as you propose. There should probably be a very high amount of variability off the baseline for immersion purposes, if the values are set so directly by the performance rather than the sorts of things that influence price in reality, it would be 'balanced' from a gameplay perspective but completely immersion breaking.

One factor you dont mention is weight. If you calculate weight in somehow (all other things being equal, the lighter item should be more expensive) that would get it a bit closer but you will still need a lot of fudge factors.
Title: Re: RCM price rebalancing
Post by: hayate666 on March 02, 2012, 08:50:55 AM
I like it. But as already mentioned, don't forget to add a comparison between weight and armor value. Something like (200:weight) x (total armor) added to the total cost. 200 is just a number I made up, but it should illustrate what I mean.
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: Grothag on March 02, 2012, 09:27:47 AM
Quote
I've formulated my ideas on how to rebalance the troops here - http://mbx.streetofeyes.com/index.php/topic,2713.0.html

I don't think I've seen you go into details as to what your method is. Could elaborate a bit?

Quote
1. Certain set point of reference. I.e. "a 3-rd tier evil human melee troop has strength 15" or something like that.
2. Dispersion. How high and how low we can set the parameter, i.e. "strength can be as low as 5 for lowly snaga and as high as 30 for elven lord".
3. Simple incrementing rules. Preferably, these should be tied to a level plus some factions-specific tweak should be applied, to fine-tune the faction differences.

1. A must have, with little variations for a flavour IMO - ex. from my troops.txt - Dale Warior 19 18 7 6 lvl15
Dale Bowman 17 20 7 6 lvl15; Rhun Horse Archer 19 18 7 6 lvl15 Rhun Swift Horseman 20 17 7 6 lvl15 - diff for 1-2 points, just not to make everyone indentical and to imply some are trained in use of certain ablities more and other in diff ones.
I consider the same race equal(speaking for Attributes) no mater the faction, but with little diff for flavour here and there as i said earlier. So all humans no matter if they're from Gondor, Rohan, Rhun etc. have equal stats - there will be bigger diff in their Proff and Skills and their equipment ofc - which is quite enough to make them distinkt enough IMO.
2. The same, but with racial bonuses applied - ex. men Str 16-18 lowest(lvl5), 23-24 for the highest tiers (no diff between 30-40 lvl humans in Str and Agi - only in skills/proff/equipment and in some cases Cha and Int (as most of them are some sort of commanders)
Dwarves Str  ~25 lower - 34-35 for highest tiers.
Haven't done elves still but they'll have ~ the same Str as Humans and  bonuses like dwarfs for Agi instead Str.
3. Yes - depending on the lvl increase, there is diff increase in stats too - there is the same increase in stats for ex. from 5-10-15-20-25-30 - for every 5 lvl the same increase in stats, so if some troop upgrades from 5-20 for ex. the 20lvl will have similar stats to some troop upgraded from 15 -20 lvl, speaking for the same race ofc.

For ex. I'm taking  humans as a base - 17/16/7/6 - for militia man(lvl5). From here with better training they get increased Str and Agi, but no more than ~40-50% from the initial Attribs(Str+Agi) at the max tier. Then I apply bonuses or lower the stats of the other races. Dwarves, Beornings and Uruks/Uruk-hai get bonus in Str - diff ones - so a base dwarf at lvl 6 have 25 Str and just slightly less Agi - 15 for balancing, as I don't recall to be written anywhere, that dwarves are clumsier than humans, just the opposite - remembered the sneaky dwarf(forgot his name) from Turin's tale. Beornings 18/17/7/6 +1 Attrib for both Agi+Str, as they're descendants of Beorn. Prob slightly more?
Uruks and Uruk hai  - 22/15/5/3 and 23/16/6/3 and Elves - 18/25/8/8.
From here it's easy - depending on the lvl increase i apply the increases in Attrib. I won't touch the lvls as they're connected with autocalc and this will disbalance the game a lot.

My biggest problem is with the bonuses that player receives - he start with the statistics of the chosen faction - ex. dwarf 25/15/8/5 + AFAIR 4 points to distribute at lvl1 - so he already have +8lvl difference from the NPC's, as he get the Attribs of lvl5 NPC + 4 points bonus.

I'm thinking to  increase the stats of all 2nd and up tier troops, so they don't fall behind the player, but this way they'll have quite big diff from t1....... ?
Title: Re: RCM price rebalancing
Post by: Grothag on March 02, 2012, 09:50:10 AM
What i did for weapons, was to calculate their weight based on the lenght and type of weapon.
So for prices close formula - price based on dmg, type and lenght of a weapon. So 2 swords with the same dmg would have same price if they have the same lenght, otherwise the shortest will be cheaper and also lighter.

Probably s'thing similar, but with lower costs as a base?
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: Arkerless on March 02, 2012, 09:59:53 AM
I would think there is no need for any racial bonuses, as they are already adequately reflected in the troop levels and equipment.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Grothag on March 02, 2012, 10:08:57 AM
Quote
I was puzzled since pierce should have a 50% AP in the ini file and I should do at least 10 damage(40-(60*0.5))

If pierce I think the formula will be : 40x1.22 - 60x0.5=18.8dmg ; For cut it should be 40x1.22 - 60x1= -11.2 + added bonus from speed to both.

As couched_lance_damage_multiplier       = 0.22 in RCM module.ini
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: hayate666 on March 02, 2012, 10:22:22 AM
Riding a Thengel warhouse (a bit slow) with Rohan Lance(40c) against Isengard Uruk(60 armor).
Merlkir gonna trolololol.  :P
RCM couched damage was balanced to only be effective at (near) full speed. Riding slowly will drastically reduce the damage you inflict against opponents.
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: GondorKnight on March 02, 2012, 10:29:58 AM
It would be 'wrong' to miss out the racial in terms of 'lore' - this is Middle-earth after all!
The Dunedain (Northern ones mainly) and Eldar are always better.

In turn it would be hard for the player to assemble an army of them- high cost and slow 'upgrade'.
But when you have the heart to grind there will be reward.

Otherwise this is pretty much 'equalize'.
Title: Re: RCM price rebalancing
Post by: The Yogi on March 02, 2012, 10:33:23 AM
I will probably be making the file with these prices for my own use anyway, but, if the players like it, it can be made the official version. Suggestions, comments and opinions, obviously, are welcome. If any coder would volunteer to make a text parser, which would reset the prices automatically in accordance with these formulas, it would be awesome! This should be very easy, but, apart from statistical modeling in MatLab, I haven't had much coding experience since graduation.

I like your idea, but as mentioned, you need to factor in armour weight. A very heavy uruk hauberk with rings like anchor chain links, while perhaps protecting just as well as light-as-a-feather mithril mail shirt, will definitely NOT cost more than The Shire. :)

As for weapons, Grothag's model goes only half way. Weight of a weapon and its lenght do not necessarily correlate. A good example is the Roman gladius, which is emphatically NOT a nimble little shortsword but a killer brute heavier than your average (and much longer) knightly arming sword. So short doesn't necessarily mean light. You also need to factor in speed. A gladius is heavy, short and fast (=epic cutting performance), while a knightly arming sword is lighter, longer and slower. Ron has taken this into account in his stats already, but if price factors in lenght but not speed it will be unbalancing as well.

Other than that, you had me at "It's a fact that equipment prices are unbalanced in RCM". :)

EDIT
BTW, I'm a fairly proficcent Excel user, so if you send me a file with the data in a text file format (separated by commas, tabs or whatever) I think I could easily enough prepare a spreadsheet which autocalcs prices based on stats. (And allows you to extract them in a text format).
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: Grothag on March 02, 2012, 10:35:44 AM
I'm thinking the same - we need racial bonuses/disadvanteges for Middle-Earth and only equipment is not enough, as those stats are very close in both RCM and my items.txt and we'll " rape" the lore otherwise ;)
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: The Yogi on March 02, 2012, 10:49:20 AM
I think the player bonus doesn't need to be corrected. After all, the player character is not just anyone, but an epic hero who might singelhandedly decide the outcome of the war. Real life isn't balanced, there are exceptional people who excel at everything - strong, fast, brain and handsome. They get all the girls/boys and we hate them to bits, but there you have it. Our player is just such an exceptional person. :)
Title: Re: RCM price rebalancing
Post by: Grothag on March 02, 2012, 10:49:26 AM
"So short doesn't necessarily mean heavy."

You meant "long" i pressume..... But the fact that you're giving an example for weapons from diff age, so used diff materials and different way of forging it, and even if we don't take these factors in consideration  ::), cases for this are very rear, so this just confirm the rule ;) .

Yes - you can use as much steel to forge a dagger as for a sword, but 1) can you balance this weapon good, as it will be much thicker than it shoud and 2) why would you invest 2x the materials and thus increase the cost  and weight of it?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Ettore53 on March 02, 2012, 10:49:54 AM
Bugs
With this submod module file  parties kill quest is bugged as in 3.0 returning to native it runs....
With this submod module file spy quest is impossible as no more blunt weapon in game.
Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: Arkerless on March 02, 2012, 11:21:34 AM
It would be 'wrong' to miss out the racial in terms of 'lore' - this is Middle-earth after all!
The Dunedain (Northern ones mainly) and Eldar are always better.

And this is already reflected with uber equipment and higher level troops...
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Arkerless on March 02, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
Bugs
With this submod module file  parties kill quest is bugged as in 3.0 returning to native it runs....
With this submod module file spy quest is impossible as no more blunt weapon in game.

There are several blunt weapons in game actually.

Title: Re: Rebalancing the troops file for RCM
Post by: Grothag on March 02, 2012, 11:43:47 AM
Quote
I think the player bonus doesn't need to be corrected. After all, the player character is not just anyone, but an epic hero who might singelhandedly decide the outcome of the war. Real life isn't balanced, there are exceptional people who excel at everything - strong, fast, brain and handsome. They get all the girls/boys and we hate them to bits, but there you have it. Our player is just such an exceptional person. :)

Hehehe, good one indeed :D.

But i got the impression, that when you start the game you're no one - started only with orcs and uruks and they were "snaga".....So the player is even less than a regular soldier and you work your way up to become a commander....
Title: Re: RCM price rebalancing
Post by: Rene Korda on March 02, 2012, 12:08:48 PM
Ok, I'm glad the topis attracts attention:)

I see two concerns being mentioned. First is factoring in weight, weapon length and/or other parameters, second is that such a simple balancing would break immersion. I've actually thought about this and decided on purpose to keeps things simple.

Here's why. Don't forget, that you are never interacting with the market in game. You're not buying things for money, you're requisitioning them from your lord for abstract points that represent his willingness and ability to supply you (i.e. you're not buying an overpriced Uruk armor - you're requisitioning whatever you can get from the armory). In fact, unlike the vanilla M&B, economics is relatively unimportant in TLD, fighting the war is. This kind of balancing is specifically intended to let you own top equipment by day 50, at which point most of your economic issues will cease to be. That also means that, by definition, prices between various factions don't have to be specifically balanced - it's not the market, you can't even convert your requisition points from one faction to the other.

What we need in this situation is a relatively labor-unintensive way to balance the prices out, so that's what I've proposed here. If you want to dig your teeth in this some more, I suggest turning your attention to balancing the troops - that, unfortunately, is harder to do, then balancing the prices.


@ Yogi

Thank you for your offer! You can just use the item_kinds1.txt file from your TLD folder (don't forget to make a backup). Each item is present there as a separate row and the parameters are the same for all items (all the parameter numbers are listed after item names and other literal parameters, so the first number after the names end is number 1 and so forth):
- the second number represents item type (shield, spear, arrow, dart, throwing axe etc.)
- the fourth number is price
- the eighth, ninth and tenth numbers are head, body and leg armor respectively
- the eleventh parameter is skill requirement (PD for bows, you won't need it for anything else)
- the thirteenth and fourteenth parameter are speed and maneuverability respectively
- the sixteenth parameter is the quantity of ammunition
- the seventeenth and eighteenth parameters are thrust/charge damage and swing damage  respectively
These last two have problems, unfortunately. The pierce and blunt damages are quoted in some weird distorted fashion, while the cut damage is quoted normally. So we would first need someone to explain, how are pierce and blunt damages calculated in the text file (or come up with an easier modding proposal - maybe, using the python files, I don't know if it would be easier that way?).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Rene Korda on March 02, 2012, 12:13:11 PM
@ Dwarf

You were probably not riding at close enough to full speed. RCM reduces the couched lance bonus as speed falls much more quickly then the native. I've no problem dealing 100+ damage to heavily armored Uruk-hai champions and captains with my Rohan lancer character.


EDIT: Come on, moderators, this is totally uncool - how are we supposed to discuss three different issues when you've dumped them all in one thread? Why not merge all the threads in this forum into one, for that matter, if you're trying to save space so much?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM)
Post by: Triglav on March 02, 2012, 12:24:43 PM
EDIT: Come on, moderators, this is totally uncool - how are we supposed to discuss three different issues when you've dumped them all in one thread? Why not merge all the threads in this forum into one, for that matter, if you're trying to save space so much?

I'm sure you have enough concentration to keep the discussion on several aspects of one modification coherent. On Taleworld forums, the whole TLD was one topic for ages, till it had 400+ pages. But 4 topics on just RCM was really getting a bit silly, come on.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 02, 2012, 12:32:22 PM
You could've left the one with the poll separate, at least. This forum is nowhere near as active as the Taleworlds' one, I think two RCM threads wouldn't hurt anyone at all for a couple of days. Then the poll thread could be merged, or even deleted.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Triglav on March 02, 2012, 12:44:18 PM
You could've left the one with the poll separate, at least. This forum is nowhere near as active as the Taleworlds' one, I think two RCM threads wouldn't hurt anyone at all for a couple of days. Then the poll thread could be merged, or even deleted.

Well, had you suggested that to any moderator, we possibly could. As it only looked like new threads on the same topic were spamming the board, the merge was done.
But the poll is still up, so you'll get your answers all the same, nothing to worry about. And I'm certain you're all clever enough to know which topic is being discussed in your posts, eh?
Maybe just because the forum is not as active as TW one, there's only a few of you debating this, so you can keep it sensible within one topic.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 02, 2012, 01:46:07 PM
Well, had you suggested that to any moderator, we possibly could.

I most certainly would have, had you shown any intention of merging the threads before actually doing it.

But I digress. What's done is done, we'll make do with one thread.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 02, 2012, 05:14:45 PM
@ Grothag

I like your troop re-balancing method, but I have two issues with it. First, your stats are way too high - a 5 lvl NPC would be overpowering the 15 level PC in terms of strength and agility (unless the player just foregoes charisma and intelligence, but he has to have those AND be more or less on par with low-level NPCs in physical characteristics). It might also lead to gameplay issues, like too high unit hp making battles unrealistic.

Second, all those small "flavor" tweaks will never be felt in the game itself, they're just too small. In fact, most players won't even know they're there in the first place. But they will create a headache to whomever would like to modify the troops file or add new content to it. It's better to keep the file more standardized, methinks. This might be less of a problem with your submod, which you personally support, but RCM is more of a collective property, so we should think about people who might want to modify it afterwards.

We certainly will adapt your method, but the  stats have to be more conservative and more standardized, IMO. Maybe you'll change them for your submod too? That way we can have a single troops file for both RCM and your submod.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 03, 2012, 12:34:05 AM
Quote
Second, all those small "flavor" tweaks will never be felt in the game itself, they're just too small. In fact, most players won't even know they're there in the first place. But they will create a headache to whomever would like to modify the troops file or add new content to it. It's better to keep the file more standardized, methinks. This might be less of a problem with your submod, which you personally support, but RCM is more of a collective property, so we should think about people who might want to modify it afterwards.

We certainly will adapt your method, but the  stats have to be more conservative and more standardized, IMO. Maybe you'll change them for your submod too? That way we can have a single troops file for both RCM and your submod.

I don't thik this would be a problem at all - i'll make them standart ;).

Quote
I like your troop re-balancing method, but I have two issues with it. First, your stats are way too high - a 5 lvl NPC would be overpowering the 15 level PC in terms of strength and agility (unless the player just foregoes charisma and intelligence, but he has to have those AND be more or less on par with low-level NPCs in physical characteristics).

The player starts with the same Attribs, as a lowest lvl troop in that faction(lvl5), but at lvl1 + he recieves added bonus of 4 points to distibute + 4 more untill he actualy get to lvl5, so i don't see prob here.

Quote
It might also lead to gameplay issues, like too high unit hp making battles unrealistic.

Hmmm, you have a point here, although the biggest part in HP, plays the IF skill, as Str gives +1 HP and IF+2, but i can lower the cap(and so the basic ones too) of the stats with ~5 ?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 03, 2012, 01:10:18 AM
The player starts with the same Attribs, as a lowest lvl troop in that faction(lvl5), but at lvl1 + he recieves added bonus of 4 points to distibute + 4 more untill he actualy get to lvl5, so i don't see prob here.

We might have a problem there then, as we might drastically affect the game balance by changing the player's starting stats like that. I think it would be better to just leave the lowest-level troops at approximately the same levels they are now (though we can and should modify the stats themselves - just keep them in the same region, without doubling or tripling them). Actually, that gives us our baseline set point from which to start.

Now, to not affect the balance drastically, I think we should also generally set the maximum troop levels at the same levels they are now and just scale everything levels linearly between the highest-tier and lowest-tier troops. There's a caveat though: since we want to re-balance some of the factions, we should lower or raise the highest-tier stats for them, possibly raising or lowering the lowest-tier stats too. That way we can add more racial flavor, strengthen or weaken some factions etc. How do you like this idea?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 03, 2012, 02:18:53 AM
Quote
We might have a problem there then, as we might drastically affect the game balance by changing the player's starting stats like that. I think it would be better to just leave the lowest-level troops at approximately the same levels they are now (though we can and should modify the stats themselves - just keep them in the same region, without doubling or tripling them). Actually, that gives us our baseline set point from which to start.

The problem is that I have requiriments in my items.tx and although most of them are not that high indeed 10-13(Str), if i leave the lowest troops with less than 10-12 Str< some will be missing equipment(mostly weapons). I can make only these troops with Str enough to cover the req(reducing Agi for balance), but this will blow away the standartization.....:S

Quote
Now, to not affect the balance drastically, I think we should also generally set the maximum troop levels at the same levels they are now and just scale everything levels linearly between the highest-tier and lowest-tier troops.

Indeed. Levels of troops shouldn't be touched at all, as they're closely related to altocalc battles the AI makes without the player and will rebalance the game a lot.

Quote
There's a caveat though: since we want to re-balance some of the factions, we should lower or raise the highest-tier stats for them, possibly raising or lowering the lowest-tier stats too. That way we can add more racial flavor, strengthen or weaken some factions etc. How do you like this idea?

Agreed, but I think we can only tweak the Proff and Skills there, as they're enough to make a big difference. Attribs can be a statical stats for the same race.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 03, 2012, 04:11:25 AM
Maybe you could lower the requirements on the weapons that lowest-tier troops use? There doesn't seem to be too many of those.

Agreed, but I think we can only tweak the Proff and Skills there, as they're enough to make a big difference. Attribs can be a statical stats for the same race.
Yeah, I like the way you approached Gondor vs. evil men balance. Gondorians should have better skills and profs, but their stats shouldn't be different, as they're the same race.

I guess we've sorted these things out, so we can turn our attention to actual number-crunching now. I propose to work this way: first sort out the stats, then the proficiencies, then the skills, as skills are probably our most important balancing tool. So let's start doing attribs race by race. Humans should be our starting point.

Now, after actually looking at human attribs, I've seen that the devs have done a good job there. The stats are standardized for all human factions and the progression is basically linear. So we don't need to do anything here (I propose leaving Beornings as they are balancing their bigger strength through PS skill), let's look at other races right away. Since the progressions are done in the same fashion for all races, we only need to change those races that we feel are over- or underpowered. So let's go through the list:

Orcs:
Their stats are a couple of points  inferior to the human stats of comparable level. This feels right and I don't think orcs are unbalanced in the game itself (maybe we could change their skills, but let's not get ahead of ourselves), so no changes there, methinks.

Uruks:
Surprise-surprise! These guys have the same stats the humans do. This accords well to lore, so I think we should leave it that way. Feels right too. If we start bumping their strength up or something, we'll be stepping out of the realm of Tolkien (where servants of the dark tend to be individually inferior to the Children of Iluvatar) and into the realm of DnD (where orcs are just strong barbarous brutes), which would be a very bad thing to do.

Dwarves:
Start out stronger then humans in all stats (this is reasonable, as the dwarves live longer and their starting troops are likely to be more experienced and mature), then converge to the equilibrium, where they're stronger but a bit less agile then human troops of comparable level. Looks ok to me.

Elves:
Here things get tricky. I think it's obvious, that Elves are too strong in the game. We can weaken them somewhat (they'll still be the strongest faction in tactical combat, just in a less superman fashion), which . Question is, should we do it through skills alone, or should we just cut their parameters here and there across the board? Also, their progression is kind of bumpy, if we change them, we can smooth it out.

Please post your opinions. When we decide what to do with the Elves and everyone agrees on other issues, we can move on to the profs.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 03, 2012, 05:18:56 AM
Quote
Maybe you could lower the requirements on the weapons that lowest-tier troops use? There doesn't seem to be too many of those.

I can, it won't be much of a problem, but there is 1 more thing, that I don't feel it's right at all, and that's why I want to up the Attribs a while, especialy for the higher tier troops - s'thing like 12/8/5/5 for a base of a human lvl5 for ex reaching to ~22/18/?/? for highest tiers.
For this thing I'll give an example with diff factions, as the file I'm having with me now, has only modified stats for the troops I've listed so far: Gundabad Goblin 5 5 4 4 at lvl4(18pts) - for a player starting this faction +4 for attrib bonus +3 till you get to lvl4 -overall 25pts at lvl 4; Gundabad Fell Orc Warrior - highest tier melee inf of that faction - 11 9 4 4 at lvl 19 - 28 pts, but for a player at this lvl - 40 pts ~ 50% more. And the player is not limited by the lvl at all(not mentioning the huge amount of other things too) - you can get to very high lvls, bearing in mind you can also import char from prev games.... So in the end the player becomes and almost invincible killing machine, even to highest tiers troops, which at least for me, entirely kills the fun of the game - I'm feeling like combined upgraded version of Superman, Batman, Rambo and Chuck Norris all at once .

On everything else I agree with you - we can use similar diffs between the races, except the elves. Here are some of their stats(TLD original): 12 12 4 4 for lvl 6 Rivendell Scout, 30 30 20 20 for lvl 50 Rivendell Guardian, bearing in mind they have huge diff in their proff and skills and better stats in gear as well.
Proff example - 125 for the orcs(during night) vs 460 for the elves - highest lvls compared(19vs50). But as you said, first we shoud do the Attribs and then we can move on to Proff and Skills at last, just gave an example.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 03, 2012, 06:06:41 AM
Elves:
Here things get tricky. I think it's obvious, that Elves are too strong in the game. We can weaken them somewhat (they'll still be the strongest faction in tactical combat, just in a less superman fashion), which . Question is, should we do it through skills alone, or should we just cut their parameters here and there across the board? Also, their progression is kind of bumpy, if we change them, we can smooth it out.

Please post your opinions. When we decide what to do with the Elves and everyone agrees on other issues, we can move on to the profs.
Just a bit of a brainstorm, see if I'm on to something here:

Elves live long, are agile and wise in the ways of the world. I think they should be on par with humans strength wise (ironflesh, power strike), but above them in level with agility (athletics, power draw and weapon/shield profiencies).

Dwarves should be far stronger than elves, but less agile (high powerstrike, iron flesh, somewhat lower armor/weapon profiencies and less athletics skill)

Humans should be weaker than dwarves and elves one on one, but have the advantage of leveling up rather quickly. They reach their peak sooner due to their finite lifespan, but don't have the time to reach the level of mastery the elves or dwarves have reached.

For all races progression should be rather smooth. The only difference should be in how quickly they scale up. Elves/dwarves start higher, but should take longer to reach their top. Humans start somewhat lower, but scale to their top rather quickly.

I think we should view Dunedain as the physical top that humans are able to reach. Nearly superhuman, but not quite. (skills 1 or 2 points higher at most, weapon profiencies somewhat higher)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 03, 2012, 06:37:32 AM
+1 for the above post.

The only diff i see, is for athletics skill for dwarves - this skill reresent s'thing like a overall fitness of the char - remember when Thorin and his band of "robbers"+ Bilbo are trapped in the Smaug lair and he call for help Dain, who comes quite fast with his 500 dwarves, traveling almost without a rest and still in good shape for battle when they arrive.

P.S. Can't wait till November this year to see how this tale is represented....... and spoiled probably....

EDIT: For Attribs I'm thinking s'thing around these lines:

Men, Uruks / Beornings, Uruk-hai +1 in Str/Agi

12 8 5 5 5

16 12 5 5 10

18 14 5 5 15

20 16 5 5 20

24 20 5 5 30

24 20 9 9 40+

Dwarves

16 8 6 4 5

20 12 6 4 10

22 14 6 4 15

24 16 6 4 20

28 20 6 4 30

30 20 6 4 40+

Elves

12 14 7 7 5

16 18 7 7 10

18 20 7 7 15

20 22 7 7 20

24 26 7 7 30

24 30 7 7 40+

Orcs

10 6 3 3 5

14 10 3 3 10

16 12 3 3 15

18 14 3 3 20

20 18 3 3 30+

What do you think?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: GondorKnight on March 03, 2012, 08:43:35 AM
IIRC the Dwarves in Tolkien's world is not like the stereotype- they are not especially strong.
But they are highly resilient and enduring. It's said that Aule created them like 'stone'- both in body and mind.
So they would have high hitpoint (from Ironflesh?).

The 'brute strength' type would be the Men frankly. The Northmen are especially known for this.

However in MnB this is quite strenge- Str only give Hitpoints, and open up Power- skills, but not giving any direct attack or psysical strength related benefits.

So giving Dwarves MnB-Strength have pretty them same effect.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 03, 2012, 10:21:34 AM
@ Grothag

In a typical campaign playthrough, the player can only reach the levels of top-tier troops by end-game - and even then he won't be stronger then them by stats, unless he only raises agility and strength. Of course, one can import a developed character or just cheat - but it cannot be considered a normal playthrough and we shouldn't balance the game based on that. Otherwise, at best, the player will be on par with NPCs of his level. The main (and absolute) advantage of the player is his human brain, but I don't think we should take that away from him:)

So I think your stats are too big. Besides, you say that the player starts with the stats of lowest-tier unit - you're effectively boosting the player, not handicapping him!

About the dwarves. The 4-th tier is 18 13 at lvl 21, the fifth tier is 18 18 at lvl 35. This is bumpy, so I propose changing it to 21 15.

Now about the elves. The current progressions are (I list strength,then agility, then level and I right 21 15 for dwarven 5-th tier, for easier comparison):
Dwarves:
9 6 6
12 9 11
15 11 16
18 13 21
21 15 35
24 18 48

Elves:
12 12 6
14 14 12
18 18 18
18 24 26
24 27 38
30 30 50

Humans:
7 5 5
10 7 10
13 11 15
15 15 20
18 18 30
20 20 40

To keep things simple, I propose scaling the Elves down in such a way that their strength is a little less then that of the dwarves, while their agility is on par with strength:
8 8 6
11 11 12
14 14 18
18 18 26 (the Elven level is a bit higher here, so I start setting stats on par with dwarven str)
21 21 38
24 24 50
What do you all think?

EDIT: BTW, after testing more extensively, I now agree with you guys on the issue of raising the attack interruption threshold to 0 from 1. Combat becomes, generally, more realistic and the stupid issue with cavalry charge being futile (because the infantry starts attacking the horses, which effectively makes 0 damage spam attacks against the riders, paralyzing them in the process) gets alleviated. I guess if other people agree we can change this in the next version of RCM.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 03, 2012, 07:36:24 PM
@ Grothag

I agree about strength being a human feature as well (even more than that of elves!), but I always figured dwarves as being physically stronger because of their lives of delving minerals and fighting goblins/orcs. I fully agree with athletics being high for dwarves as well. I remember the Hobbit since you mentioned it :)

@ Rene Korda
I don't get what you mean with the stats numbered like that.  ???

Wasn't the whole point of infantry that cavalry charges are supposed to be weak against them? Cavalry beats archers/disorganized infantry, archers beat infantry, infantry beats cavalry. It's the way it's always been with RCM. If damage treshold 1 changes any of this I don't agree with changing it without thorough and critical testing.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: GondorKnight on March 03, 2012, 10:19:03 PM
@ hayate666
Not with heavy (shock) cavalry vs non-pike.
The heavy cavalry in TLD (Mainly Swan Knights, Tower Knights and Kataphract) are armoured to the toes.
They can break infantry, but it's more of the morale actually. (RL analogy)

Back to the game,
When the threshold is 0, even a single infantry(thus disorganized) can stop a knight's attack, and attract everyone to swarm him.
Which break cavalry to totally useless.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 04, 2012, 12:53:05 AM
Quote
So I think your stats are too big. Besides, you say that the player starts with the stats of lowest-tier unit - you're effectively boosting the player, not handicapping him!

You're wrong here - if you look more closely in the stats, you'll notice there is 2x diff between t1 and t2 than from t2-t3-t4 etc, but with the same lvl diff(5). This way I reduce the handicap of the troops against the player - that's my goal in the first place ;) .

Quote
In a typical campaign playthrough, the player can only reach the levels of top-tier troops by end-game - and even then he won't be stronger then them by stats, unless he only raises agility and strength.

I can't agree with you here as well. What typical campaign you're talking about - orc or elven - lvl19 against lvl 50 ;) ? Also he'll be always stronger than the troops at his lvl, simply because with the current build, he has ~50% more points to distribute and with mine ~15-20% (which I'll remove in my game). Also 1 more thing - why should the player must have higher Attribs all around? Isn't there the best thing, that in fact you can customize your char, every time with diff build if you want - 1 time a great leader with high Int and Cha, the other time superb archer with 30 Agi for ex, next time strong warrior with high Str, etc? Where is the fun, if you can be all these at once every time when you start a new game?

P.S. Also 1 more advantage of the higher stats - you can more easily brake the ~5-6 points "barrier" with the skills, if you choose so.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: The Yogi on March 04, 2012, 03:50:30 AM
One of the things I really like about Grothag's mod of RCM is the larger number of items of food. (ie 100 units per default instead of 50). Could we perhaps have that in the RCM item file as well? I know it has nothing at all to do with realistic combat, but it was such an improvement.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 04, 2012, 10:05:26 AM
I even think it has everything to do with realistic combat. What army would march on supplies that would run out within days of moving?  :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 05, 2012, 01:01:22 AM
Here is an example with the Attribs - I take men: 7 5 4 4 lvl5 - Start the game +4 - 8 6 5 5 and at lvl 5 - 9 7 6 6 if he distribute them evenly. Now what about if he don't distribute them that way - 15 5 4 4, 7 13 4 4, 11 9 4 4, etc..... We can get >2x diff in the attribs for the troops at the same lvl. Now higher lvls - as you said in most games, if the player starts a new, he'll get to around lvl 30-35 prob, although really depends of his play style. Let's take lvl 30 as it's similar to men troops - 18 18 4 4(30lvl) - player ex 24 21 4 4 Str+Agi, 30 15 4 4(mostly Str+some Agi), 15 14 12 12 even, etc - compared to their highest lvl - 20 20 ? ?(lvl40). That's not such a big deal, you might say, the problem is that the player will also recieve huge boost in skills too - he can have from ~2-3x till ~10x+ skill points at this lvl NPC's, depending of how much points he put in Int. And if this is not enough, he can have HUGE diff in proff, as he's not limited in this at all - you can train or fight solo battles as much as you want. So in the end we can have a player, who is much better even from the in game Maiars, so he must be a Valar, but working for some commander, steward, or king- if he's lucky :D .

My point is that i want to make battles harder for the player, who plays the game at maximum difficulty, as everyone have the choice to lower the difficulty, if s'one finds it too hard :) .
Bear in mind that my experince is only from fighting on foot at maximum diff, haven't tried mounted combat in the mod yet, but i highly doubt that it will be harder than foot.

I hope more ppl state their oppinions on the subject.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 05, 2012, 03:21:39 AM
@ Grothag

I've two issues with your approach. First, and most importantly, you're proposing to break the game balance. Remember, hp and armor do not scale nearly as strongly as damage boosting skills and profs. By raising overall NPC level significantly, you're effectively lowering the usefulness of armor and making every unit type more deadly. This creates a totally new balance situation - of which we know next to nothing, since almost no one has played with it extensively. The current version of balance has been play tested extensively, we know its deficiencies and we know how to correct them. With your version, we lose all that, while the bonuses we get are dubious at best.

Here's where the second issue comes in. The player can always best an NPC on combat, that's a given. I can easily couched lance 50-level elven footmen with my 5-level Rhun guy riding naked on a sumpter horse with a cracked lance. We're talking about a handicap of 45 levels and I'd still win most of the time. There really is no way to mitigate that - and this mitigation is unnecessary. Now, if the player was able to single-handedly beat entire armies, that would create a problem, but under RCM it is very hard to do so and the changes you propose wouldn't make it much harder anyway. The challenge for the high-level character should be strategic, how to win the War of the Ring, not how to beat a couple of goblins. If you feel the tactical part is unpleasantly easy for you and strategic challenge doesn't offer enough of a temptation, you should probably lower the XP progression (I think you can do that). Also, importantly, your changes wouldn't make much of a difference, as the player would still be much stronger then the NPCs - remember my45-level handicap example.

So, as I see it, dramatically increasing troop stats would destroy the current balance, whithout really giving any tangible bonuses in terms of gameplay (remember that what matters is how it all feels in-game, not the numbers behind that game). Experimenting with is in your submod is interesting, but I don't think it'll work as the main version of RCM.


@ hayate and Yogi

This food idea sounds reasonable. Let's implement it simultaneously with the price changes, as we'll need to raise food prices too.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 05, 2012, 06:03:10 AM
Quote
I've two issues with your approach. First, and most importantly, you're proposing to break the game balance. Remember, hp and armor do not scale nearly as strongly as damage boosting skills and profs. By raising overall NPC level significantly, you're effectively lowering the usefulness of armor and making every unit type more deadly. This creates a totally new balance situation - of which we know next to nothing, since almost no one has played with it extensively. The current version of balance has been play tested extensively, we know its deficiencies and we know how to correct them. With your version, we lose all that, while the bonuses we get are dubious at best.

You got me wrong. For the bigger part i was talking for the attribs, not all stats. My bigger issue is with them and to much less extent with skills, where i think we can add few points here and there, but nothing drastic, which could hamper the overall balance that much, so to be really noticeable. As for proff, I'm really satisfied with most of them, as when i made my own formula based on races and lvl, i got very similar results, where the biggest difference was in the middle tiers with around ~30pts, which is really not that much and for lowest and highest was 5-10pts which is neglectable. I also thank the devs, that they made the player to start with low enough proff.

Quote
Here's where the second issue comes in. The player can always best an NPC on combat, that's a given. I can easily couched lance 50-level elven footmen with my 5-level Rhun guy riding naked on a sumpter horse with a cracked lance. We're talking about a handicap of 45 levels and I'd still win most of the time.

I can't take your example as a valid for 2 reasons - 1st you're talking about AI inf vs mounted player - we all know that M&B favours mounted combat, as it should be. If you were facing mounted AI(lvl50) or you was on foot too, it was going to be harder for you for sure. 2nd The player always has an advantage in 1on1 combat, as he's a thinking human being, not an AI, but I want to refer to fights with 2 or 3 opponents(not saying more as in most situations the result should be obvious), where if you face enemies(as you - cav/inf/archers) with similar equipment and skills the % to come victorious should be very slim at best (max diff).

Quote
By raising overall NPC level significantly, you're effectively lowering the usefulness of armor and making every unit type more deadly. This creates a totally new balance situation - of which we know next to nothing, since almost no one has played with it extensively.

As i said above, i really can't accept that changing the attribs(we're talking of a change around 1.5) and adding few skill points here and there(especially to "passive" combat skills like shield/athletics/riding/if) and even changing just slightly some troops proff, will disbalance the game.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 05, 2012, 08:33:23 AM
Well, if we don't change the skills and profs drastically - why bother with overall attribs overhaul in the first place? We won't make the game much more challenging that way. Maybe a little, but most players probably won't even notice. I understand your sentiment, but let's not forget that what matters is the in-game experience, not the numbers behind it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 05, 2012, 12:32:42 PM
First I want to say big thanks to the devs, for not being crazy like me and made the stats more standart, not trying to make almost every single troop with diff Attribs(and stats overall)  :lol:

Now, I think i finished with changing Attribs for my file and i got an idea - i'll make 2 versions - 1 with higher stats and 1 with the stats we figure out here - 2 is always better than 1 :)
TBH when i look at my file, I realized that in fact the elves got the least changes - mostly switched from more Str to more Agi but with the same or very similar numbers. There were also very little changes to some other troops too, like Dunedains. So in fact I buffed a little all other races.

I would start changing the next troop file Attribs, are those to be taken? :

Quote
About the dwarves. The 4-th tier is 18 13 at lvl 21, the fifth tier is 18 18 at lvl 35. This is bumpy, so I propose changing it to 21 15.

Now about the elves. The current progressions are (I list strength,then agility, then level and I right 21 15 for dwarven 5-th tier, for easier comparison):
Dwarves:
9 6 6
12 9 11
15 11 16
18 13 21
21 15 35
24 18 48

To keep things simple, I propose scaling the Elves down in such a way that their strength is a little less then that of the dwarves, while their agility is on par with strength:
8 8 6
11 11 12
14 14 18
18 18 26 (the Elven level is a bit higher here, so I start setting stats on par with dwarven str)
21 21 38
24 24 50

Also the next step are proff. Any thoughts on them - left unchanged/changed a little/a lot?

IMO, the biggest prob with proff is, that all the archers have the same close fighting abilities as their ranged ones. But should they have for ex 50% less or 25% or for some not changed at all? Or should they receive some boost(25-50%) in Archery instead? Also what about the elves - should the receive a nerf here?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 05, 2012, 02:48:04 PM
Now, I think i finished with changing Attribs for my file and i got an idea - i'll make 2 versions - 1 with higher stats and 1 with the stats we figure out here - 2 is always better than 1 :)
Capital! That settles the issue then. And we can always add it to RCM too, as an optional package.

I haven't heard any protests, so I assume people are OK with the proposed elven stats. If they seem fine to you too, let's take them (don't forget to use the original troops file for modding, not your already modded one:) ).

Concerning the profs. Does anyone know the formula which relates them to damage, speed and accuracy  (I think that's all they affect)? I think they might well need re-balancing, at the very least, between different races and we should look into the melee/missile troops balance here too. But we need to have some more precise measure, then our gut feelings.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 06, 2012, 12:30:09 AM
Quote
Increasing weapon proficiencies will result in:

    Increased Damage
    Faster Attack Speeds
    Increased Accuracy (when using a ranged weapon)

All results are gradual and may need as many as 50 points in a proficiency to see a notable difference.

Can't find the exact formula though...

Also can you help me with the following list of companions - which race they belong:
Cirdil - elf?
Galmyne - man?
Luevanna - elf?
Faniul - man?
Durgash -uruk-hai?
Lykyada - man?
Fuldimir - man?
Bolzog - orc?
Varfang - man?
Dimborn - man?

P.S. I'm using http://www.wupload.com/file/2666930792/troops.txt (http://www.wupload.com/file/2666930792/troops.txt) as a base file.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 06, 2012, 01:31:56 AM
Cirdil is a man and Durgash is a regular orc, not an uruk. Everything else is right. Here is the thread to look it up, in case you need to - http://mbx.streetofeyes.com/index.php/topic,2539.msg59623.html#msg59623

Let's wait a bit, maybe someone will find that proficiency formula. If not, we'll take the number 50 and base our changes on it, I guess.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 06, 2012, 03:11:03 AM
BTW RK, do you want to change the companions and leaders in the other file(i've changed them in the 1st one, with the higher stats, although the changes were very little)?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 06, 2012, 03:22:07 PM
I hope we'll be able to leave them as they are. If that'll make them too unbalanced, we'll re-balance them after we do the regular units.
Title: Re: RCM price rebalancing
Post by: The Yogi on March 06, 2012, 04:19:42 PM
But the fact that you're giving an example for weapons from diff age, so used diff materials and different way of forging it, and even if we don't take these factors in consideration  ::), cases for this are very rear, so this just confirm the rule ;) .

Yes - you can use as much steel to forge a dagger as for a sword, but 1) can you balance this weapon good, as it will be much thicker than it shoud and 2) why would you invest 2x the materials and thus increase the cost  and weight of it?

Balance does not depend on weight, but on where the point of gravity is along the blade. A very heavy sword can have excellent balance and a very light weapon can have poor balance (although it will be less of a handicap). Also, the speed of handling all else equal is inversely proportional to length (although surely not in a linear fashion). 

On the other hand, length is good for reach, which is particularily important when mounted, and with a really long blade (we're talking longswords, not singlehanders) hits land at a greater velocity thanks to the significant leverage you get. You'll notice that in RCM, longer blades (all else equal) will tend to cause less damage, and it only picks up when you make the leap to longswords.

As for why one would use more materials, the reason for making a weapon heavy is very simple - a heavier blade packs more punch. (ie the gladius over the knightly sword).
 
So to sum up, and always talking about swords
For handling and speed; weight is bad, length is bad
For damage; weight is good, speed is good

As for historical examples you're mistaken - in the very same medieval period, there are numerous examples of swords of very different geometry but similar weight.  I only gave an extreme example to illustrate my point. But you'll find that pretty much all the medieval single-hand sword types weigh just above one kilogram while varying enormously in length. An Oakeshot Type XIV (sharply tapered short arming sword) is not generally lighter than a longer Type XIII (referring here to the onehander not the Type XIIIa greatswords), but is a far nimbler weapon.

In the case of TLD, I'd guess that Orc weapons will tend to be heavier (due to poor iron) than their human, elven and dwarven counterparts, but probably also shorter (because orcs are short and not as strong as Men), so slow clumsy but packing a mean punch if they hit.
Title: Re: RCM price rebalancing
Post by: The Yogi on March 06, 2012, 04:43:12 PM
@ Yogi

Thank you for your offer! You can just use the item_kinds1.txt file from your TLD folder (don't forget to make a backup). Each item is present there as a separate row and the parameters are the same for all items (all the parameter numbers are listed after item names and other literal parameters, so the first number after the names end is number 1 and so forth):
- the second number represents item type (shield, spear, arrow, dart, throwing axe etc.)
- the fourth number is price
- the eighth, ninth and tenth numbers are head, body and leg armor respectively
- the eleventh parameter is skill requirement (PD for bows, you won't need it for anything else)
- the thirteenth and fourteenth parameter are speed and maneuverability respectively
- the sixteenth parameter is the quantity of ammunition
- the seventeenth and eighteenth parameters are thrust/charge damage and swing damage  respectively
These last two have problems, unfortunately. The pierce and blunt damages are quoted in some weird distorted fashion, while the cut damage is quoted normally. So we would first need someone to explain, how are pierce and blunt damages calculated in the text file (or come up with an easier modding proposal - maybe, using the python files, I don't know if it would be easier that way?).

Unfortunately, not items have all the same format. It seems those items that have secondary models called in the the item file (scabbards, arrows, carried bows etc) have more columns, which screws up the data format. I suppose it could be corrected manually, but that will take more time than I have on my hands (I'm a more than full time working father of three boys aged 4-8 years. It is life Jim, but not as you know it.)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 06, 2012, 04:56:57 PM
It's ok. We'll work it out one way or the other.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 06, 2012, 11:29:04 PM
Quote
For handling and speed; weight is bad, length is bad
For damage; weight is good, speed is good

That's what I'm saying too ;)

Quote
As for historical examples you're mistaken - in the very same medieval period, there are numerous examples of swords of very different geometry but similar weight.  I only gave an extreme example to illustrate my point. But you'll find that pretty much all the medieval single-hand sword types weigh just above one kilogram while varying enormously in length. An Oakeshot Type XIV (sharply tapered short arming sword) is not generally lighter than a longer Type XIII (referring here to the onehander not the Type XIIIa greatswords), but is a far nimbler weapon.

It seem you haven't payed attention to 1 of the factors I've mentioned -
Quote
So 2 swords with the same dmg would have same price if they have the same length, otherwise the shortest will be cheaper and also lighter.
This implies that the 2 swords have very similar, if not identical, blades - otherwise they would have diff dmg ;)

Also if you look at the weights in my file, you'll notice, that for ex, аt average swords weight ~1.4kg. So it seem that even if
Quote
Grothag's model goes only half way
the weights are as they should be, bearing in mind that there are some weapons(and armours) with reduced or increased weight, due to the fact that this is a fantasy mod with it's lore ;)
I admit there could be some mistakes, especially with the 2H weapons like haldbergs, billhooks and 2h axes, as i've never used those kinds of weapons.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: The Yogi on March 07, 2012, 04:24:39 PM
It seem you haven't payed attention to 1 of the factors I've mentioned -
Quote
So 2 swords with the same dmg would have same price if they have the same length, otherwise the shortest will be cheaper and also lighter.
This implies that the 2 swords have very similar, if not identical, blades - otherwise they would have diff dmg ;)

True, I had missed that part. But two swords with similar weight and damage do not necessarily have similar blades. Swords, like most other human inventions evolved over time, and not only as a reaction to armour development. The strongly tapered blades of the XIV-XV century are simply better than their earlier paralell edge counterparts in that they have better balance and thus are more nimble. So you could in theory have two swords with identical length and weight, but one (the more tapered one) would have better speed and thus should be more expensive.

In any case, what I disliked about your original proposal was to factor in length ONLY as a positive factor for price. Both length and speed need to be taken into account since they work against each other.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 07, 2012, 10:42:04 PM
Quote
In any case, what I disliked about your original proposal was to factor in length ONLY as a positive factor for price. Both length and speed need to be taken into account since they work against each other.

I took length, dmg and weapon type for price calc. I've never said length is only a positive factor - depending on the length of the weapon, I add or subtract from a curtain value, so it could lower the price(in most cases it did). Also this plays bigger role in swords price calc, as the bigger the sword(length + weight(dmg)) the more materials and work it needs to be a good weapon, so it's pricey.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 08, 2012, 11:55:02 AM
@ Grothag
I've just noticed that dunedain troops have elven attributes. I suggest we nerf them a bit, but not to the point of an average human, as they definitely seem to be above-average:
Dunedain:
7 6 6
11 8 12
15 12 18
18 18 26
24 24 38

Ok guys, no comments on the formula, so let's re-work the proficiencies without it. Here are the current progressions (uruks are the same as Humans, dunedaine have elven profs, all profs have the same levels):

Prof Level

Humans/Uruks:
70 5
100 10
135 15
170 20
200 30
300 40

Dwarves:
100 6
160 11
210 16
240 21
300 35
350 48

Orcs:
70 4
95 9
105 14
125 19

Elves:
240 6
280 12
310 18
360 26
410 38
460 50

My proposals are:
1. To make the progressions more linear and less bumpy.
2. To nerf  the elves the same way we did when we rebalanced the attribs, so that they are closer to the Dwarves.

Concerning the archers/melee profs and the difference in profs between good and bad humans. I think we should accomplish the archer/melee balancing through skills only. PS and Ironflesh offer more the enough opportunities to nerf archers or boost melee and they're actually much better to use, since we don't have the formulas for profs, but do have them for skills. If we add profs to the mix, we'll just overcomplicate things, both for ourselves and for future modders. Think about how you would feel, if we had to actually determine the profs for each unit type separately - I really wouldn't want to do it:)

Good/bad is trickier. Good humans already benefit from the fact that their max tier is higher (Dale doesn't, but this feels ok, at least, to me). Should we add additional bonuses? If yes, should we do this with profs, or just stick to boosting their skills?

Assuming we don't boost good humans' profs, here are my proposed stats:

Humans/Uruks:
70 5
100 10
135 15
170 20
235 30
300 40

Dwarves:
100 6
155 11
210 16
265 21
310 35
360 48

Elves:
150 6
210 12
270 18
320 26
370 38
410 50

Dunedain:
90 6
135 12
180 18
225 26
270 38

Let's discuss these, then move on to the skills.
Title: Re: RCM price rebalancing
Post by: The Yogi on March 08, 2012, 01:29:54 PM
These last two have problems, unfortunately. The pierce and blunt damages are quoted in some weird distorted fashion, while the cut damage is quoted normally. So we would first need someone to explain, how are pierce and blunt damages calculated in the text file (or come up with an easier modding proposal - maybe, using the python files, I don't know if it would be easier that way?).

I found this piece of info out at least:

The damage attribute in the itemkinds1 file itself determines the type of damage. 0-255 is cutting, 256-511 is piercing, and 512+ is blunt. This is why cutting damage looks normal while piercing and blunt do not. To write in the level of piercing damage you want, just add the desired value to 255 and type it in item_kinds1 in the relevant field. For blunt, just add it to 511.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 08, 2012, 01:38:32 PM
Brilliant, thank you!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: vota dc on March 08, 2012, 01:46:51 PM
Still remember that Dunedain max tier is 5, so they are already inferior to elves (even more in the official version where I just raised elven swordmen proficiency for high tier). With the new rules archer of the tower can achieve a better archery value than Dunedain, but gondorian archers are just regular man while all Dunedain have a tiny elven blood (more sight and better lifespan)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 08, 2012, 02:35:39 PM
Quote
@ Grothag
I've just noticed that dunedain troops have elven attributes. I suggest we nerf them a bit, but not to the point of an average human, as they definitely seem to be above-average:
Dunedain:
7 6 6
11 8 12
15 12 18
18 18 26
24 24 38

In the other file, I've made the dunedains with +1Str/Agi than other Humans/Uruks. Also they should have better skills and proff too.
BTW I got them to 25/21 at max tier ;)

Quote
Concerning the archers/melee profs and the difference in profs between good and bad humans. I think we should accomplish the archer/melee balancing through skills only. PS and Ironflesh offer more the enough opportunities to nerf archers or boost melee and they're actually much better to use, since we don't have the formulas for profs, but do have them for skills. If we add profs to the mix, we'll just overcomplicate things, both for ourselves and for future modders. Think about how you would feel, if we had to actually determine the profs for each unit type separately - I really wouldn't want to do it:)

Hmmm, I really don't know about this. Archers with the same proff in 1h/2h/pole, as the equal lvl inf is really not right IMO.... I really hope more ppl, post their oppinions on this.

Quote
Good/bad is trickier. Good humans already benefit from the fact that their max tier is higher (Dale doesn't, but this feels ok, at least, to me). Should we add additional bonuses? If yes, should we do this with profs, or just stick to boosting their skills?

This is really hard thing. IMO Dunedains should "rule" concerning humans, as well as Black Numenorians. Gondor,Umbar and Beornings should be 2nd, followed by Rohan/Khand/Rhun/Harad/Dale which should be equal. At last are Dunlanders, but not too far behind Rohan/Khand.....as they already suffer from their equipment.


Quote
Dunedain:
90 6
135 12
180 18
225 26
270 38

Don't think this is good idea - you're giving them just slight advantage against "regular humans" in low tiers, which they loose at the highest tier. Also there is a huge diff, between them and the elves/dwarves. My proposal for the maxed proff is:
Elves ~400, Dwarves ~370, Dunedains/BN ~350. The elves and dwarves are similar to what you wrote. The Dunedains/BN would look like:
350 38
280 26
210 18
150 12
100 6
Also I think that kind of gradation is better - lowest diff in prof from 1-2, then slightly higher 2-3, etc. As the higher tier the troop goes, the harder it upgrades and also it get's a lot better.

Gondor/Umbar/Beorn:
80 5
110 10
150 15
200 20
250 30
300 40

Rohan/Khand/Rhun/Harad/Dale:
70 5
100 10
130 15
170 20
220 30
270 40

Dunland(Uruks here or in the upper group and Uruk-hai 1 group up?):
70 5
90 10
115 15
150 20
200 30
250 40

Orcs:
50 4
70 9
100 14
140 19
Slight buff at their top tier at expense of their lowest tiers, which should be cannon fodder :).

Elves:
150 6
180 12
210 18
250 26
320 38
400 50

Dwarves:
130 6
150 11
190 16
230 21
300 35
370 48

I think the elves and dwarves should start with high stats, but they become less important with tiers, so in fact at the top 2 Dunedian tiers, the Humans have slightly better stats than the elves and dwarves as they got to their limit, but the elder races benefit from additional lvl, so if they survive more they'll get better than Humans in the end.

P.S. BTW I think we can buff even more the highest tiers of orcs, as the orcs are very inferrior to the other races indeed, but here we go to the extreme. They get nerf all around(less Str/Agi, Proff, Skills and equipment), so in the end we have 1 elf = 5-6 orcs if not more. Looking at top tiers - just in proff, the elves have 3x points than orcs, we can add attribs too: +28 points more in Str/Agi for elves than orcs(in the modified file for RCM with nerfed elves), which in fact is 2.5x more(orcs have 20pts against 48pts for elves) and if we add skills and equipment, we can get even bigger numbers from 1 elf=5/6 orcs, like 1 elf = 10+ orcs.

Quote
while all Dunedain have a tiny elven blood (more sight and better lifespan)

Hmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIR, the Dunedains are descendants of the fallen kingdom of Arnor and from Gondor too, which in their turn are founded after the ruin of Numenor in the far West beyond the "known" Middle-Earth. So in fact the Duneadains have nothing to do with elven blood ;)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: bearlyfunctional on March 08, 2012, 02:59:46 PM
Sorry, a bit off topic but I didn't really know where else to post about this.

I've noticed that the RCM is slightly incompatible with the combat animations and female armor mod. I suspect it has to do with the different module files but I'm not exactly sure. Is there any easy way to fix that? Thanks for your help.

*prepares to be castrated for insolence*

female armor is incompartible with 3.1 (12, 13) AFAIK
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 08, 2012, 04:16:37 PM
In the other file, I've made the dunedains with +1Str/Agi than other Humans/Uruks. Also they should have better skills and proff too.
BTW I got them to 25/21 at max tier ;)
Sorry, I posted the wrong stats. Let's just throw in +1 Str/Agi for them, the same way you did in the second file. Oh, and this should apply to Mordor's black numenoreans too (but not Umbar - the corsairs are of very mixed blood, they shouldn't be boosted like that).

Hmmm, I really don't know about this. Archers with the same proff in 1h/2h/pole, as the equal lvl inf is really not right IMO.... I really hope more ppl, post their oppinions on this.
Don't think of them as representing actual martial abilities with the weapon - this would require much more complex modeling, then one simple parameter, to be at least marginally realistic. We should approach this purely from the in-game perspective, so that combat feels right. The numbers behind it don't matter. That's why I'm proposing to stick to the skills - we know the maths behind them, unlike with proficiencies.

Also, don't forget that changes of magnitude less then 50 won't probably be felt in the game. So we can skip those and only make big changes, wherever these are necessary.

This is really hard thing. IMO Dunedains should "rule" concerning humans, as well as Black Numenorians. Gondor,Umbar and Beornings should be 2nd, followed by Rohan/Khand/Rhun/Harad/Dale which should be equal. At last are Dunlanders, but not too far behind Rohan/Khand.....as they already suffer from their equipment.
That doesn't hold even if we pretend that prof stats can relate to reality. Beornings are in no way better-trained then Dale or even Dunlanders. Umbar was conquered by Haradrim, so I don't think they can count as truly Numenorean, or even compared to Gondor.

It's bad lore-wise too. The good side humans are clearly individually superior in Tolkien's writing. The devs were right when they applied that to Rohan and Gondor, I think.

Finally, instead of balancing the game, it would further unbalance it. Remember, we've got realism built into this through realistic equipment. Pretending that the troop stats actually represent anything realistic about those troops is futile, these parameters are way too abstract for that. Let's just fix it in a way that all or almost all factions are playable in an interesting fashion while remaining true to lore, so as to preserve the immersion.

I think we should stick with just the two gradations - higher profs for dunedain and BN, lower stats for every other human and for uruks. Now, we could break that second gradation into higher for Gondor (or Gondor and Rohan) and lower for everybody else, but remember that differences in profs of lower then 50 won't probably be felt on higher tiers. So what's the point of making them in the first place? This'll just make the job harder for other modders, who'll be confused by a multitude of different stats. So I propose to take your Gondor/Umbar/Beorning stats and make these the standard human ones.

I like your Dwarven stats too, let's take them.

The Elves' progression is way too bumpy. Something like this is better IMO:
150 6
180 12
220 18
270 26
335 38
400 50

The orcs. Let's just leave their profs as they are. These guys are actually pretty well-balanced in current RCM (I've specifically tested this issue extensively). It's some of the other factions that are imbalanced in one way or the other. I'd prefer not to touch what works well already.

Dunedain/BN. Well, I'd nerf them some more, but what the hell, your version looks good too. And it's probably better in terms of being close to lore.

@ bearlyfunctional
RCM only modifies a small part of module.ini file. Here it is:

########this section modified for Realistic Combat Model

# damage below this will not interrupt melee attacks
damage_interrupt_attack_treshold      = 1.0

# You can modify the damage system by editing the following values:
# The first three values determine the amount which will be directly subtracted from damage due to armor.
# The next three values determine the percentage reduction from the damage.

armor_soak_factor_against_cut       = 1.0
armor_soak_factor_against_pierce    = 0.5
armor_soak_factor_against_blunt     = 0.5

armor_reduction_factor_against_cut       = 0
armor_reduction_factor_against_pierce    = 0
armor_reduction_factor_against_blunt     = 0


horse_charge_damage_multiplier        = 1.0
couched_lance_damage_multiplier       = 0.22

#setting speed_power to 2.0 makes damage scale with the square of missile's speed.
# you can set it to 1.0 to make it scale linearly as it was before.
missile_damage_speed_power = 1.0;
melee_damage_speed_power = 0.5;

#########end RCM modifications

You can just copy it (from RCM module.ini file, or from this thread) and paste it into another module.ini file (with the other submod). Just find the part of the file that has the stuff written here (the numbers'll be different of course) and paste the RCM stuff instead of it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: bearlyfunctional on March 08, 2012, 04:37:07 PM
Thanks a lot, works perfectly. Sad about lady armor though, hope someone redoes it...
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 08, 2012, 11:38:43 PM
Quote
Sorry, I posted the wrong stats. Let's just throw in +1 Str/Agi for them, the same way you did in the second file. Oh, and this should apply to Mordor's black numenoreans too (but not Umbar - the corsairs are of very mixed blood, they shouldn't be boosted like that).

Agreed.

Quote
Don't think of them as representing actual martial abilities with the weapon - this would require much more complex modeling, then one simple parameter, to be at least marginally realistic. We should approach this purely from the in-game perspective, so that combat feels right. The numbers behind it don't matter. That's why I'm proposing to stick to the skills - we know the maths behind them, unlike with proficiencies.

Also, don't forget that changes of magnitude less then 50 won't probably be felt in the game. So we can skip those and only make big changes, wherever these are necessary.

That's what I'm talking about too - proff influence the biggest 3 combat factors - dmg, speed and accuracy. So if we have f.e an Archer(man) lvl 30 vs inf(man) lvl 30 - 250 in all, so the archer is hitting with melee weapons with the same speed and dmg as the inf(same or close dmg wpns). We can only boost the inf through PS skill, but there should be really big diff, ex 5+(40%+ more dmg) and with such a big numbers in proff, this could go unnoticed - ex. with 250 proff and same weapons - 60dmg without PS, 84dmg with PS5, to medium armour - in most cases the enemy will be dead no matter the PS, but it would we a whole diff story if the archer has 125 proff in melee. Also the speed factor is very important too, but can't be regulated from the skills at all.....

Quote
I think we should stick with just the two gradations - higher profs for dunedain and BN, lower stats for every other human and for uruks.

Agreed. But also tempted to,
Quote
we could break that second gradation into higher for Gondor and Uruk-hai and lower for everybody else
as both Gondors and Uruk-hai, should be an "upgraded" version of their races lore wise and gameplay wise IMO.

Quote
The Elves' progression is way too bumpy. Something like this is better IMO:

The diff is very slim from the ones i wrote, but i really prefer the 1st, just because they imply more (for higher tiers), that the humans(especially Dunedains/Numenorians) are not inferior to the other elder races when they reach their peak, but they loose a lot from their short lives - that's why the bigger diff from lvl38-50 for the elves and dwarves.

Quote
The orcs. Let's just leave their profs as they are. These guys are actually pretty well-balanced in current RCM (I've specifically tested this issue extensively). It's some of the other factions that are imbalanced in one way or the other. I'd prefer not to touch what works well already.

Agreed. It's probably my love towards those nice, wronged, lumpy fellows, that blinded me  :lol: .

Which reminds me - big CHEERS for the man who wrote the story for the Moria orc companion - the healer(forgot his name ATM) and in fact for all, but this is the one so far, that really grabbed me :) . It's a 10+ story indeed :) .
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 09, 2012, 02:21:30 AM
The archers. You have a point, but there are many things to consider here. Ok, let's think about this purely from the current balance perspectives. Are archers too strong in melee currently (I don't mean their stats, I mean their combat performance)? What will happen if we nerf them, how will it affect combat? Don't forget that arms and armor are the most important part of the equation in RCM. Archers are already nerfed bigtime there. Also, what about mounted archers? We might distort the balance between Rohirrim and Isengard, which is quite well-tuned currently, as mounted archers are hugely important for Rohirrim.

Uruk-hai shouldn't be stronger then humans lore-wise, IIRC. Gondor, hmm. The dunedain obviously should be above regular humans, but most Gondorians are of very mixed ancestry, they cannot be considered pure dunedain. And if we create this additional tier, we cannot make the prof difference too big, because this will unbalance humans with other races. So i propose to just make Gondor and Rohan skills a bit bigger. And we'll boost the Beornings through skills too, to represent their strength. Maybe Uruk-hai too, make them a little better then Mordor Uruks. But with profs let's keep it simple, archers vs. melee is already enough of a headache here.

Elves. As you said, the difference is small, but less bumpiness means more smooth progression in the game. I really would prefer that, since almost no one will notice the subtle profs differences between humans and elves, they just won't be felt in the game. After all, these are just balancing parameters, let's not make too much of them.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 09, 2012, 04:35:09 AM
Quote
The archers. You have a point, but there are many things to consider here. Ok, let's think about this purely from the current balance perspectives. Are archers too strong in melee currently (I don't mean their stats, I mean their combat performance)? What will happen if we nerf them, how will it affect combat? Don't forget that arms and armor are the most important part of the equation in RCM. Archers are already nerfed bigtime there.

I really can't give a deffinite "yes" here, because I haven't played the mod that much(never finished even 1 campaign, not talking about a full campaign with RCM or my tweaks at all, yet), but I've seen enough posts to consider this and also from my own little experience facing Rohan and Gondor. I think when I face elves the situation will become much worse. TBH nerfing melee capabilities, should not have big impact on the archers, purely because the archers should be held away from a direct H2H engagements. When they do, in most cases they should loose(of course here are many " if's" - if elite archers against lower tier inf, or mid tier archers against snagas, etc. the outcome will favour the archers for sure).
I really want to hear at least 1-2 more opinions on this matter for sure.

Quote
Also, what about mounted archers? We might distort the balance between Rohirrim and Isengard, which is quite well-tuned currently, as mounted archers are hugely important for Rohirrim.

That's impossible for 2 reasons - 1. Mounted archers are not shock cavalry, so they shouldn't be charged in the enemies ranks, but to maneuver around them and pepper with arrows. So far I've seen this behaviour from Rohan AI and it's very pleasurable(in a masochistic way :) ) and they're doing their job. Only 2 things can hamper that and they're not influenced by statistics - to " cheat" forcing them in the corners of the map and if they bug and stand still(hapens some times with the current version).
2. ~90% of the time, the MA die with a bow in their hands, so nerfing their melee, will make big effect only when they run out of arrows and decide to charge, when they should be very vulnerable to packed infantry or in 1on1 against the same tier specailised infantry.

Quote
Uruk-hai shouldn't be stronger then humans lore-wise, IIRC.

S'thing is not quite right here - so you're saying Humans=Uruks, but Uruk-hai are improved version of the Uruks, made by Saruman, so the logical things are Uruk-hai>Uruks/Human. The other way is Uruk-hai/Humans>Uruks

Quote
The dunedain obviously should be above regular humans, but most Gondorians are of very mixed ancestry, they cannot be considered pure dunedain. And if we create this additional tier, we cannot make the prof difference too big, because this will unbalance humans with other races. So i propose to just make Gondor and Rohan skills a bit bigger. And we'll boost the Beornings through skills too, to represent their strength. Maybe Uruk-hai too, make them a little better then Mordor Uruks. But with profs let's keep it simple, archers vs. melee is already enough of a headache here.

Ok. Agree on this. We'll make them with the same proff, but with different skills.

So we'll have - Dunadians/BN's - 1st grp, all other humans/uruks/uruk-hai - 2nd grp, elves 3rd, dwarves 4th and orcs 5th grp. Right?

Quote
Elves. As you said, the difference is small, but less bumpiness means more smooth progression in the game. I really would prefer that, since almost no one will notice the subtle profs differences between humans and elves, they just won't be felt in the game. After all, these are just balancing parameters, let's not make too much of them.

Except from the lore perspective there is another thing about this - why do you need
Quote
more smooth progression
? With the bigger diff between their before last and last tier, the 2nd become even more precious and also you can really say " That's what I was waiting for" ;) .
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 09, 2012, 05:27:58 AM
Smoother progression is generally more pleasant from the gameplay perspective. The players usually expect it by default and not many of them will look at the numbers beforehand. So I think it would be best to keep things simple and linear. And it won't aggravate future modders, as smooth linear progressions are much easier to understand and work with.

Ok, so let's settle it with the elves and wait for more opinions about ranged vs. melee. On everything we've come to a consensus, it seems - the five groups you list are correct. The stats, so that you don't have to take them from different posts:

Dunedain/BN:
100 6
150 12
210 18
280 26
350 38

Humans/Uruks/Uruk-hai:
80 5
110 10
150 15
200 20
250 30
300 40

Dwarves:
130 6
150 11
190 16
230 21
300 35
370 48

Elves (I took my version, if you don't agree, let's discuss them some more):
150 6
180 12
220 18
270 26
335 38
400 50

Orcs:
no changes, we leave their profs as they are.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 09, 2012, 06:00:29 AM
OK. I'll use for the elves in the RCM troop file, the one you wrote and mine stats for the file i'll include in my submod ;) .

For the archers it is complicated, but I think we really need to fix this. It get's even worse though, as we have 3 types of archers - MA, specialised archers and infantry with archery skills....
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 09, 2012, 06:01:16 AM
Shouldn't the difference between archers and melee be primarily based on equipment? All soldiers should be able to use the weapons they wield effectively, it's just that archers usually aren't armed with a sword and/or shield that's really effective in close combat. I found it odd that elven archers are so heavily armed that you don't really need any infantry to absorb melee chargers.

Isn't it too simplistic to put humans on par with Uruks? Why would Sauron and Saruman even need humans if they're weaker than what they can produce themselves? I'd prefer to have humans stronger than Uruks at higher tiers. Better able to make independent decisions (thus learn from experience) due to having free will, but at lower levels somewhat behind physically.

And is there going to be a difference between uruk of Isengard and uruk of Mordor? I recall reading somewhere that Saruman kept the best stuff for himself.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 09, 2012, 07:25:52 AM
Shouldn't the difference between archers and melee be primarily based on equipment? All soldiers should be able to use the weapons they wield effectively, it's just that archers usually aren't armed with a sword and/or shield that's really effective in close combat. I found it odd that elven archers are so heavily armed that you don't really need any infantry to absorb melee chargers.
The main problem is that the real proficiency with a weapon is a much more complex thing then whatever is described by a single number in MnB. We can only balance this stuff to feel right in the game, the numbers behind that game are unrealistic just by the way they are structured.
So we should discuss whether the archers need to be nerfed in melee or not, based purely upon current balance. What do you think?

Isn't it too simplistic to put humans on par with Uruks? Why would Sauron and Saruman even need humans if they're weaker than what they can produce themselves? I'd prefer to have humans stronger than Uruks at higher tiers. Better able to make independent decisions (thus learn from experience) due to having free will, but at lower levels somewhat behind physically.
Uruks don't have the highest tiers, that are available to humans. So it's actually more or less the way you describe it.

And is there going to be a difference between uruk of Isengard and uruk of Mordor? I recall reading somewhere that Saruman kept the best stuff for himself.
We'll sort this out through skills.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 09, 2012, 07:32:53 AM
Quote
Shouldn't the difference between archers and melee be primarily based on equipment? All soldiers should be able to use the weapons they wield effectively

There is some logic, but think about this - while the archers train every day with their bows, trying to hit targets at diff range, to shoot while riding and at moving targets, exercising their pull and synchrony for fire, the infantry(and cavalry) uses this time to train only with close weapons, so there is no doubt they should be much better than the archers in their melee skills/proff, putting aside the equipment, as no general with at least some brain, would give the archers shields and the heaviest armour and weapons, but leave the assaulting infantry without protection and with knives :).

So IMO:
1. Infantry should be always better equipped than archers - both for offense(weapons) and defense(armours and shields) - they receive the bigger hit every time and they're the backbone of every army. There could be only 1 exception - for factions relying heavily on archers, where their equipment can be on par with the inf.
2.Infantry must excel considerably against archers in melee combat for 2 main reasons - 1st i've said above - they train a lot more with close wpns(realism) and 2nd so there is some point to get infantry(balance) - otherwise why would you bother - gather all archer army and shoot everything that moves - they'll kill the horses of the cav and break the shields of the inf, as well as kill most of the troops, then finish what is left with melee, as they can fight as good as any other. Who cares if they're more lightly armoured(i'm not talking about you elves! ::)) when they can hit as hard as a well trained inf man and cause the same dmg?

Quote
Isn't it too simplistic to put humans on par with Uruks? Why would Sauron and Saruman even need humans if they're weaker than what they can produce themselves? I'd prefer to have humans stronger than Uruks at higher tiers.

Read 2 posts above - we came to the following conclusion - they'll have the same proff(except Dunedain and BN), but will differ in skills, so humans will have higher skills, then uruk-hai and at the bottom uruks.
We decided it to be like that, because otherwise, we must make them with quite big diff at proff, so it counts, but will be more time consuming and more difficult to change, so instead we can make them different(deadlier :) ) enough by changing their skills, as there is no doubt that humans are more skilled than any ork/uruk/uruk-hai. Sadly we can't do this for archers too, as the skills won't be enough to compensate the same(especially at higher lvls) melee proff IMO.....

Pls continue to post more opinions ;)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 09, 2012, 09:18:08 AM
There is some logic, but think about this - while the archers train every day with their bows, trying to hit targets at diff range, to shoot while riding and at moving targets, exercising their pull and synchrony for fire, the infantry(and cavalry) uses this time to train only with close weapons, so there is no doubt they should be much better than the archers in their melee skills/proff, putting aside the equipment, as no general with at least some brain, would give the archers shields and the heaviest armour and weapons, but leave the assaulting infantry without protection and with knives :).
That may be true - an may well not be true. We're talking about semi-feudal levies here, who knows what level of specialization they have? Your average Japanese samurai would be equally proficient with both the bow and the sword. Might the same be true for, say, Elven mounted archers? We really don't know, so the realism argument doesn't hold. Some difference would probably be felt, but would it be large enough to justify re-balancing all the numbers? Don't forget, below the difference of 50 the players won't feel any changes at all on higher tiers.

why would you bother - gather all archer army and shoot everything that moves - they'll kill the horses of the cav and break the shields of the inf, as well as kill most of the troops, then finish what is left with melee, as they can fight as good as any other. Who cares if they're more lightly armoured(i'm not talking about you elves! ::)) when they can hit as hard as a well trained inf man and cause the same dmg?
I've tried that. With RCM it doesn't work, even with the elves. The archers, being lightly armored, take huge casualties from enemy archers and the enemy melee troops do close in for the kill. Higher-level Lorien archers can survive this, but it would be hard to level them up in the first place in this kind of environment.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: GondorKnight on March 09, 2012, 09:35:27 AM
A small question- is there plans to change the 'item modifiers'?

The 'special' gears used to be worthy as their relative increase was large- not so in RCM.
Top items have like 70 defense point on their own, while 'Robust' give +2. Meh.
Cost and chance of them appearing is rather improprotional to their improvement.

Maybe scaling them up a little bit?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 09, 2012, 10:49:25 AM
Ron accounted for that specifically, I think. We'll break the realism, if we try to adjust too strongly for the modifiers. Maybe the price of specials can be adjusted, we'll have to think about it after we finish the troops and item prices.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 09, 2012, 11:00:18 AM
Quote
Maybe scaling them up a little bit?

Sadly they're hardcoded - ex. "cracked" substract -5dmg from wpns, -4 armour from armours, - 56 health from shields, no matter the stats of the equipment...
So some items receive bigger boosts/penalties(those with lower numbers) and with the others the difference is insignificant, due to the developers of M&B not doing this by percentage change, but a statical numbers.....
The only thing we can change is how they modify the price and how often the modified equipment appears in shops.

Quote
I've tried that. With RCM it doesn't work, even with the elves. The archers, being lightly armored, take huge casualties from enemy archers and the enemy melee troops do close in for the kill. Higher-level Lorien archers can survive this, but it would be hard to level them up in the first place in this kind of environment.

Are you sure about this? I recall at least a few ppl, saying they never use elven infantry, as it's useless if you have enough elven archers.

TBH, I'm not really found of the idea to look for every single 1 archer in the troops file and change it statistics, depending on if they're spec archers, MA or mixed inf/archers, but i'll do it, if archers are OP compared to the other classes.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 09, 2012, 12:18:04 PM
Good to see humans and Uruks taken care of! :green:

OP Elven archers seem confined to Rivendell and Lorien. When I was playing with Mirkwood and just using their archers, I took a lot more losses each fight than I was taking with Rivendell. This changed when I guarded my Mirkwood archers with some Iron Hill infantry.

It seems Rivendell and Lorien give way too much armor to their archers, which allows them to come out on top in a lot of melee situations they shouldn't be able to. The archers of Mirkwood are armored in what seems to be light chain at best, without shields.

As Rivendell my archers were wearing armor that was looking a lot more solid and most of the time wearing shields as well. Mirkwood "mixed" archers do have a shield, but not the armor needed to survive an extended melee. (As it should be imho)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 09, 2012, 12:34:08 PM
Are you sure about this? I recall at least a few ppl, saying they never use elven infantry, as it's useless if you have enough elven archers.
They were playing Native, not RCM. A full archer army in RCM is inevitably less efficient then the mixed one. The infantry shield-wall can absorb much more enemy ranged fire then the archer line. The reason for archers seeming to be OP is that people test this concept on Rivendell or Lorien, whose troops are massively OP in all categories (that's why we're nerfing them). Try the full archery army with Gondor, Dale or evil factions - you'll probably be unable to play at all. Even with Mirkwood you'll be taking big losses whenever there'll be enemy archers or cavalry present. And even in the case of Lorien and Rivendell, the pure archery army is inferior to the mixed one, it'll be taking much more casualties and won't be able to win big battles efficiently. That's why I was having issues with nerfing the archers in the first place - I just don't see them as OP.

As Rivendell my archers were wearing armor that was looking a lot more solid and most of the time wearing shields as well. Mirkwood "mixed" archers do have a shield, but not the armor needed to survive an extended melee. (As it should be imho)
Rivendell archers still suck under prolonged enemy missile fire, because their armor is inferior to the infantry one.Only the high-tier Lorien archers have really heavy armor. But that's part of the mod, I don't think we can nerf all archers just because the high-tier ones for Lorien have heavy armor.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 09, 2012, 03:28:25 PM
OK. So I have no issues then. We can start thinking about skills, as I'm starting to implement proff :).
Also, if the Lorien archer line is OP, after we finish with skills too, we can always nerf their melee proff, to balance them ;) .
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 09, 2012, 03:40:10 PM
Ok, good. The skills will be the hardest part. I'd like right away to propose to keep the orcs as they are. They are nicely balanced (even though their skills are rather high for their level) and there's no need to change them - in fact, they feel exactly like Tolkien orcs should in combat, IMO. Since we would keep them fixed, that means that we have to keep the skills overall on the same level they are now, to keep the balance. So we won't be doing drastic changes (like doubling skills for everyone), but we'll have to balance particular units, nerf some factions (elves), boost other factions (beornings) etc. How do you like this approach?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 10, 2012, 03:09:44 AM
OK. Let's try it this way and see how it goes.

BTW about BN - strangely they're not on par with Dunedains in the orig file(haven't noticed this so far :) ). So i've improvised there:
130 10(lowest tier)
180 15
230 20
320 30(highest tier regular troops)
+
370 40 for the high cap/cap/lieutenants(dunedains don't have those)

Those are the stats i've used for my file. Tell me if you lake them or you want to change them for the RCM one.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 10, 2012, 04:17:59 AM
Yeah, these are good, let's use them. BTW, I completely forgot about captains and lieutenants. Did you change them too? I  think we can just give them the same stats that top-tier troops of their faction have, to keep things simple.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 10, 2012, 06:56:26 AM
In my submod, I've changed everyone. For RCM file, i've changed only troops, as I've asked you earlier about the other faction NPC's and you said to leave them that way for now... BTW I can't remember where those cap's/lieutenants appear at all....???
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 10, 2012, 08:31:18 AM
They're in the troops file. After the regular units, I think. Could you change then to have top-tier stats? This goes for special NPC troops, like Rohan's King's Guard and Black Uruk of Barad Dur, too.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 10, 2012, 09:35:12 AM
Quote
hey're in the troops file. After the regular units, I think. Could you change then to have top-tier stats? This goes for special NPC troops, like Rohan's King's Guard and Black Uruk of Barad Dur, too.

I know where they're in the file, I was talking about where do they appear in game(cap's/lieutenants) ;) . Also the bolded ones are in their places - where the other troops are, not with cap's/lieutenants, so they're already changed ;) .

When i finish changing the proff, I'll send you the file(or both if interested), so you can see/test it, while we're changing skills.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 10, 2012, 11:41:55 AM
When i finish changing the proff, I'll send you the file(or both if interested), so you can see/test it, while we're changing skills.
Hey, I was actually going to ask you to do that!:) I'll PM you my e-mail then.

Yeah, I've seen the captains and lieutenants appear. Some of the bigger non-lord parties have them.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 10, 2012, 11:23:17 PM
Quote
Yeah, I've seen the captains and lieutenants appear. Some of the bigger non-lord parties have them.

Ahhh, now I remember - in the war parties.
It's time to start playing the mod more seriuosly again it seems :)

BTW the t1 orcs had the same proff as t1 humans, so in my file I've left them with the same proff and changed only the human ones(from 70-80)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 11, 2012, 01:48:23 AM
Just so we don't mix things up, here are our profs for the Humans/Uruks and for the Orcs:

Humans/Uruks/Uruk-hai:
80 5
110 10
150 15
200 20
250 30
300 40

Orcs:
70 4
95 9
105 14
125 19
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 11, 2012, 03:27:15 AM
Correct.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Annuinir Thanguridhren on March 11, 2012, 12:22:25 PM
So is an updated version of this submod close to publishing? I've been following the talk (or at least what little I understand) and am getting anxious to see the fruits of all your debating :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 11, 2012, 01:15:25 PM
We're doing the skills now. This'll probably take a bit longer, since most of the balancing issues are handled through them. Can't say how long this will take. Maybe about a week overall.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Annuinir Thanguridhren on March 11, 2012, 02:31:59 PM
Well so long as you promise it will be amazing I suppose I can wait that long haha
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 12, 2012, 05:30:09 AM
Some thoughts on the skills. The main idea, I think, is to nerf the overpowered factions, boost the weak factions and bring the overall balance closer to autocalc (which is more or less optimized), while being true to lore and the realistic spirit of RCM. We have agreed not to touch the orcs, as they are finely balanced. This means that we have to stay at the same general levels we are now, so that we don't nerf the orcs by boosting everyone else. For this, I propose making a single skills framework for human and Uruk troop, except the dunedain and BN (BN, not Umbar). This framework would basically replicate what we have now, but in a consistent fashion and it'll be the same for all humans and Uruks. After we have it, we'll make the necessary tweaks for some of the human and Uruk factions (i.e. boost Beornings and nerf the Uruk-hai), some of the units (i.e. two-handed weapon troops, they seem to be boosted  too much by high PS skill in the high damage/high armor environment of RCM) and balance the Dwarves and the Elves.

The framework I propose is very simple. We will only make the changes to Ironflesh, PS, PD, PT, Shield, Athletics, Riding and Horse Archery skills, as other skills don't matter for NPC troops. The skills are divided into three categories: Ironflesh, Primary skills and Secondary skills.

For Ironflesh, I propose to have it like this:
0  5
1  10
1  15
2  20
2  30
3  40

By Primary skills, I mean those that are the most important for a certain unit type.
For melee infantry: PS, Shield, Athletics
For archers: PD, Athletics
For melee cavalry: PS, Shield, Riding
For mounted archers: PD, Riding, Horse Archery
If the troop has throwing weapons, PT is always considered to be Primary for it. If that troop cannot have bows, it has melee Primary skills (incl. Horse Archery for mounted troops). This is because throwers have too little ammo to be used as true skirmishers, so they're more like light infantry/cavalry and should be decent enough in melee.
A special case is the Pelargir marine, a Gondor unit that has a bow, but is evidently also a melee unit. For flavor, I suggest we consider both melee and archers' Primary skills to be Primary for the marine (but only for it).
The proposed scaling for primary skills:
0  5
1  10
2  15
3  20
4  30
5  40

Secondary skills are of secondary in importance.
For melee infantry: none
For archers: PS, Shield
For melee cavalry: Athletics
For mounted archers: PS, Shield, Athletics
The proposed scaling for secondary skills:
0  5
1  10
1  15
2  20
2  30
3  40

Finally, there's a question of lowest tier troop giving its skills to the starting player. To preserve the flavor, we should leave these 1-st tier troop skills unchanged, but lower all of their skills that are listed here to 1, if they are more then 1. Non-listed skills we don't touch at all.

If there's a general agreement on these stats, we should write them into the troops file. After that, we can test properly and do all the other tweaks, that we've planned.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 12, 2012, 10:42:51 AM
I like your numbers and their direction. There is only 1 correction from my POV - Ironflesh should be primary skill for melee inf and cav, so they should use it's numbers for a prim skill(from 0-5) and not used for archers/MA at all.

Quote
we should write them into the troops file. After that, we can test properly and do all the other tweaks, that we've planned.

This is the part I don't agree and I'll explain why.
The attribs and proff are easily readable in troops.txt, but sadly this can't be said for skills, so i have to use some of the editors out there. Here comes the worst part - not only this is a much slower process, but the only editor that works(i've tried them all) for the file we try to modify, is an older version of Hookie's Troop Editor that i have(v1.4). The problem with it, except that it's very slow to change numbers in it 1by1, is that it changes automatically some of the troop meshes too. So every time after I make a change with it, I have to manually open the file again and change the meshes for the units 1 by 1.
I have no other option and I'll do it once, then I'll copy the skills to the 2nd file as well. I also promise to polish some of the skills if needed, but I'm not going to change them 2-3+ times.

So to avoid all this, I propose to discuss the factions 1 by 1 and then to implement them in the file. It's not going to be that hard, when we have a base already. It will be a lot easier that way too.

Ex. - Beronings - base stats +1(or2) for PS/IF/Athl/PT all around - inf/arch- don't have cav AFAR.

What do you think?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 12, 2012, 11:14:31 AM
Ironflesh gives too much of an edge for heavily armored guys, unfortunately. We will have to drop it for some (Uruk-hai come to mind) of them anyway. But I agree, let's leave it for melee guys only. But the progression should be like I described.

Are you sure? I've been using Hookie's 1.8 and it seems to work well. It'd be really bet if we couldn't do the testing while doing the changes. I guess we'll have to ask the devs to provide the Python file.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 12, 2012, 11:44:24 AM
Quote
Are you sure? I've been using Hookie's 1.8 and it seems to work well. It'd be really bet if we couldn't do the testing while doing the changes. I guess we'll have to ask the devs to provide the Python file.

Yes. Tried Hookie's v1.9 - latest and the only 1 i found a download link for. Also Morgh's Text Editor and k0nr@d Excel Editor. Sadly all not working.
BTW I've written a PM to Hookie more than a month ago with the problem and a plea if he can send me version 1.8 of his TE, as there is no link anywhere to be found, but he never replied to me, as it seems he's not very active lately...
Have you tried to edit Uruks f.e. and if yes, did you have problems with 1.8?
Also can you send it to me, so i can test it too?

The Python file won't be of much use now, as I've already changed Attribs and almost all proff. If I use the python file, I'll have to change them again.

Quote
Ironflesh gives too much of an edge for heavily armored guys, unfortunately. We will have to drop it for some (Uruk-hai come to mind) of them anyway. But I agree, let's leave it for melee guys only. But the progression should be like I described.

My idea is - primary for inf(0-5), but with penalties and bonuses depending of race/faction(so some will have 2-3 at max and others 6-7). Secondary for melee cav(0-3) again with  penalties and bonuses depending of race/faction.
I doubt it will give HA troops so big advantage, bearing in mind that in the orig file, there are even human troops with 10 IF ;)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 12, 2012, 12:06:42 PM
http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=709 - here's the download link for it. I did my troops file with it and all seems to be right.

I've tested it, it does. Specifically, it gives higher level Uruk-hai the ability to survive one more blow, then they otherwise would. Since almost every blow by an Uruk-hai with two-handed weapon is a frag, this seriously unbalances combat. Racial nerfs will probably work too. But we shouldn't boost the infantry at the expense of melee cavalry, both should have IF as primary skill then. And mounted archers should probably have it as secondary, as there's no way for the player to keep them out of harm's way, so we'll just be creating additional headache instead of tactical necessity.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 12, 2012, 11:37:01 PM
Quote
http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=709 - here's the download link for it. I did my troops file with it and all seems to be right.

This is v1.9 which is not working(or at least for me), as it gives an error when trying to click a troop in troops.txt. The other 2 files are working though....
I'll PM you my email, if you can send me a copy of v1.8.

Quote
I've tested it, it does. Specifically, it gives higher level Uruk-hai the ability to survive one more blow, then they otherwise would. Since almost every blow by an Uruk-hai with two-handed weapon is a frag, this seriously unbalances combat. Racial nerfs will probably work too. But we shouldn't boost the infantry at the expense of melee cavalry, both should have IF as primary skill then. And mounted archers should probably have it as secondary, as there's no way for the player to keep them out of harm's way, so we'll just be creating additional headache instead of tactical necessity.

So for IF you propose, either we take 0-3 for inf/cav(prob to ~5 for some races) and 0 for arch, or 0-5 for inf/cav and 0-3 for arch(or only MA)?

Also what do you think about my suggestion for beornings? I prefer to give them +2, as they suffer very much from their low armour and could youse that buff.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 13, 2012, 03:01:40 AM
I checked again, I actually have 1.9, not 1.8. But it works fine, no errors of the sort you're talking about.

Yeah, you got my proposals for IF right. In second proposal, only MA get the boost.

Beornings need boosting and your proposals are good (though I would exclude Athl from boosting), but I'd prefer to be able to test them a little when we make the changes. If  the editor will not work for you, I guess you'll just send the file to me and I'll edit it myself, then send back to you.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 13, 2012, 04:15:24 AM
OK. So i'll send you the file, after I finish with the proff(as we talked earlier), so you can tweak the skills.
Meanwhile I'll try to find some solution to make 1.9 work. It's probably because I'm using Win7 64bit....
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 13, 2012, 06:12:40 AM
I use XP, so it's quite probable.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 13, 2012, 08:05:00 AM
Sadly there is nothing I can do about 1.9 - It gives me Error 9: Subscript out of range, every time i try to click on a troop. Hookie wrote this may be caused by some blank spaces in the file that the program is trying to read, but you don't have those problems, so it's probably not the case then........

However just saw s'thing in the orig file, that made me rofl - All dwaves have Riding skill 10 and HA - 10 :D - probably an easter egg from the team ;)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 13, 2012, 09:19:00 AM
Yeah, I noticed that too:)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Merlkir on March 13, 2012, 09:25:34 AM
Or it might have something to do with the way dwarves are unable to ride horses. I'd be careful about changing that. GA would know more.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 13, 2012, 10:14:28 AM
Thanks for the warning Merlkir!

RK, let's discuss the following list i've made.

Base:
Primary skills - 0-5
Secondary skills - 0-3

Inf Prim skills - IF/PS/Shield
Inf Sec skills - Athl/PT

Arch Prim skills - PD/PT/Athl
Arch Sec skills - PS

Melee Cav Prim skills - PS/Riding/Shield
Melee Cav Sec skills - IF/Athl

MA Prim skils - HA/Riding/PD/PT
MA Sec skills - Athl/PS

Mixed units both to be considered secondary(0-3).

Faction bonuses/penalties:

Khand/Gondor - use base

BN/Dinedians +2 PS/Athl/Shield/Riding, +1 PD

Dunledings +2 IF/Athl

Rohan/Rhun +2 Riding/HA

Beornings +2 IF/PS/PT/Athl

Elves +2 PS/PD/Athl/Shield/Riding

Dwarves +2 PS/Athl/Shield

Uruk-hai -1 PS/IF/Athl/Shield/PD/PT

Uruks -2 PS/IF/Athl, -1 Shield/PT

Orcs -3 PS/IF, -2 Shield/PD/PT

Ignore the IF for Inf/Cav/Archers, as I like it better that way and will change it to those numbers in my file, as I think pure inf should have advantage over dismounted melee cav(for same tiers), as cavalry has advantage when mounted.
However, tell me your toughts about the other things.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 13, 2012, 12:59:17 PM
Are these for your file? You'll probably end up with a bunch of snails for infantry that way:) Athletics should be primary for all those who run around. And you'll have OP Uruk-hai. The orcs will be totally nerfed, on the other hand.

Apart from that, the racial bonuses should scale somewhat, or you'll make them too big at lower levels (or too small at higher levels). And I really am not sure about all those tweaks. They might feel right as general ideas (i.e. Rohirrim being good riders), but imbalance the game.

BTW, do you know how to test troops in game editor? I can't find how to place them.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 13, 2012, 01:37:06 PM
Quote
BTW, do you know how to test troops in game editor? I can't find how to place them.

Sadly no. Always tested them in a real game(with cheats), although it's slower....

Quote
Are these for your file? You'll probably end up with a bunch of snails for infantry that way:) Athletics should be primary for all those who run around.

You're very wrong here - just make 1 calc for some faction troop(ex Dale which forgot to add to Gondor/Khand), then compare it to the orig ones and you'll see ;) . If you make it primary for all "who run around", you'll end up with all footed troops being as fast as an orc during the night ;) .

Quote
Apart from that, the racial bonuses should scale somewhat, or you'll make them too big at lower levels (or too small at higher levels). And I really am not sure about all those tweaks. They might feel right as general ideas (i.e. Rohirrim being good riders), but imbalance the game.

Look at the bolded text again ;) .

I posted those for discussion to be used in general, as half of the things above are taken from your post and the other half are my suggestions for racial bonuses/penalties ;) .
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 13, 2012, 01:55:25 PM
There's a problem - I'm getting the same error that you had,  when trying to edit your file. No problems  like that with other troop files. Maybe there are some blank spaces, as Hookie said?

UPD. Hmm, I see some weird characters right at the beginning of the file in Total Commander's Lister (F3), but I don't see them in text editors.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 13, 2012, 02:01:12 PM
Very strange, as i used the file that is in the important threads......
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 13, 2012, 02:05:48 PM
That file works fine in editor. I think Win 7 screws the file up somehow. Does anyone know anything about those strange characters?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 13, 2012, 02:14:10 PM
I think i understand where is the problem
(http://i33.fastpic.ru/thumb/2012/0313/6a/7875541efba3161909727bb7578a6b6a.jpeg) (http://fastpic.ru/view/33/2012/0313/7875541efba3161909727bb7578a6b6a.jpg.html)

Note the 1st line and then look at the opened files.....???
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 13, 2012, 02:34:22 PM
Ok, can you solve it?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 13, 2012, 03:21:32 PM
Solved. Check PM.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 13, 2012, 03:57:00 PM
Awesome! I've checked it and it works fine. Tomorrow I'll start working with it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 14, 2012, 12:50:11 PM
Ok, a couple of changes to standard framework after careful re-thinking:

1. Athletics needs to be primary for everyone. There is no sense in making it otherwise neither from the realism, nor from the balancing point of view.

2. I stick to leaving IF secondary for everyone. We'll either imbalance the game by differentiating it between units, or we'll be just wasting time. No need to do either.

3. PT should be primary for everyone capable of throwing weapons. They're kind of useless as is, no point in nerfing them even more.

So, the list is:

Melee infantry
Primary: PS, Shield, Athletics, PT(if present)
Secondary: IF

Archers
Primary: PD, Athletics
Secondary: IF, PS, Shield

Melee cavalry
Primary: PS, Shield, Riding, Athletics, PT (if present)
Secondary: IF

Mounted archers
Primary: PD, Riding, Athletics, Horse archery
Secondary: IF, PS, Shield

Mixed units have to be classified as either melee or archery oriented. Note that all throwing skirmishers should be considered melee.

Now, to keep things simpler, let's make some  additional faction tweaks right away and then balance the game with them already coded in.

To level the racial bonus, I suggest giving it as secondary stat that is added to secondary or primary stat that is already there. For example, first tier troop would have 0+0=0, second tier - 1+1=2, third tier - 2+1=3, fourth tier - 3+2=5, fifth tier - 4+2=6 and sixth tier - 5+3=8. In cases, where we want to seriously boost the entire troop tree, we just give set +2 or +3 bonuses (probably not higher). So, the racial tweaks:

Beornings +2 IF/+secondary PS (+1 above tier one, if PS is secondary), PD

Dunadain/BN +1 to PS (primary), PD (primary), PT, Shield (primary) starting with tier 2

Rohan +1 Riding

Rhun +2 Riding/+secondary Horse archery
Also considering giving +2 PS (+1 for first tier) to all the butt-naked Rhunian guys (to pretend they're berserk or something), in a desperate attempt to give some semblance of balance to the war in the North. Your thoughts? Same bonus can be given to Harad and Khand naked-butt guys too.
BTW, it seems that the Rhun heavy armor meshes were changed, so Ron's scaling of them has to be updated (they look like mediocre quality mail mixed with leather now, while they were the "naked-butt" type previously). I suggest updating the body armor value to 30. This would be both adequate and provide an additional boost to Rhun.

Dunland +1 Athletics/+secondary IF (not that it's gonna help these guys, their equipment makes them too weak without regard to skill)

Elves +2 Athletics/+secondary to all primary stats (except Athletics)/+1 to all secondary stats starting with tier 2
Also, need to raise Lothlorien Infantry and Veteran Infantry up one tier. They really don't make sense on tier 1 and 2. I don't think this'll screw up autocalc, it'll probably balance it a bit better, as the tactical/auto discrepancy is largest with the elves.

Dwarves IF is primary/Athletics is secondary/+1 to PS (primary), PD (primary), PT, Shield (primary) starting with tier 2

Orcs are unchanged

Everyone else is standard.

What say ye?

Some changes to bow PD requirements shall be necessary too, BTW.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: mymee on March 14, 2012, 04:37:35 PM
Hi Ron, I was hoping you can tell me a bit more about RCM. I looked through the files and found the following, can you confirm this is what changes?

1) In the modules.ini, everything from minimum melee damage to interrupt all the way to ranged and melee damage's speed scale factor is changed. All else stays the same.

2) In the item_kinds1.txt, costs are all scaled up; you also tweaked weapon stats to compliment the modules.ini changes, and this makes combat more realistic.

Now I have have three questions haha:

1) Is this savegame compatible? Should be right all it changes are background settings, costs, and stats.

2) Can you specify how exactly this makes combat more realistic? I was hoping for a detailed description in the first post. Like I remember you saying now an archer can't just shoot down a heavily armored knight. That's great, but can you give a more comprehensive explanation of how combat will be different?

3) I'm also using the Improved Animations submod. The thing is this submod also comes with it's own modules.ini, so I'm not sure if I should replace it. But since you only change one small section in it, can I just copy/overwrite your changes into the Improved Animations ini and I'll be able to use both?

Thanks a lot for the clarification.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 14, 2012, 07:28:06 PM
Ron is unfortunately taking a long break from RCM, so somebody else will have to answer that.

1) It appears so. I always tested RCM with multiple older saves and new versions worked without starting a new game.

2) The best way is to try it. Ron wanted to make combat more true to life with this mod, so that situations where you expect to die in real life would be deadly here as well. The biggest difference I found and really love is that combat is more lethal for everybody involved. 1 to 3 arrows will incapacitate anyone unarmored. Good armor makes a big difference against the right weapons. Weapons are lethal against what they are supposed to be. It changes the flow of combat in a really good way.

3) It should work like that. Other people have tried the same for other mods and reported no issues.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 15, 2012, 12:54:56 PM
Ok, guys, the files are ready. If anyone wants any changes, let's discuss them. If not, I'll put the files up for testing.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ettore53 on March 17, 2012, 04:32:53 PM
Request  of 7 skill in riding for  for heavy horses is not realistic .  They are horses not tigers....
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 17, 2012, 04:50:26 PM
Which horse is that? The biggest requirement I've seen is 5.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: GondorKnight on March 17, 2012, 11:00:11 PM
Requirement of 5 and then Champion +2?
The Stubborn ones +1 to the requirement; Timid ones -1.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ettore53 on March 18, 2012, 01:50:15 AM
OOps so that came  from Gortha mod, mear and  armored horses asked 7 riding....sorry.
On argoment someone can post last troops file , it seems rather stable now.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 18, 2012, 02:43:08 AM
Requirement of 5 and then Champion +2?
The Stubborn ones +1 to the requirement; Timid ones -1.

Max base is 4, so with Champion it'd be 6. By 5 I meant 4+Stubborn.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 18, 2012, 03:38:44 AM
Ok, the testing results seem to be quite pleasant so far. Specifically, the Rohan-Isengard war is  more balanced and closer to lore in its tactical part. Haven't yet tested the elves properly, but the Dunedain feel like stronger humans, rather then the ubermensch, now. Rhun is seriously buffed, but we'll have to work out how well it feels in terms of immersion later, after I put the files up for testing.

One final touch, the orcs. They need some changes, as some of the PS values generate unrealistically high damage, which is immersion breaking and needs to be nerfed somewhat. To compensate, I'll raise their profs.
So, the stats for the orcs. Profs:
4   70
9   95
14   125
19   170

Attribs, primary: 1,2,3,4, secondary: 1,1,2,2, IF is zero for all orcs.

After making the changes, I'll put the files up for testing.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 18, 2012, 04:35:29 AM
Ok, guys, here are the download links for TESTING (these are not the final versions yet!!!):

http://www.wupload.com/file/2676780952/item_kinds1.txt
http://www.wupload.com/file/2676780957/troops.txt

Don't play with them, just boost yourself and your party with cheats and do some combat testing. Testing Rhun, Beornings and Elves is the top priority, orcs and dwarves come second, everyone else is at your discretion. Please play both FOR and AGAINST the faction that you're testing, preferably against/with different factions.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 18, 2012, 05:53:47 AM
Nice! I'll try to get some testing asap. I'm a bit swamped at work at the moment, so I haven't got much time this week. I'll do what I can though.  :green:
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 18, 2012, 02:23:57 PM
Hmm, I've noticed that the majority of Umbar troops lack shields in combat, yet have them in the troops file. This really nerfs the corsairs, what's causing it and how to fix it?

UPD. Ok, the issue's solved, the "Shield" flag was off on them. Also, sorted out the Thranduil Royal Spearmen -  now they're spearmen with shields, not guys with knives - and gave shields to Brego guards.

Here's an updated file, please use it, if you're planning to test corsairs: http://www.wupload.com/file/2676984962/troops.txt .

UPD.2. The Uruk-hai Berserker appears to be totally worthless. Whatever stats I give to it, it's still a downgrade, not an uprgade. So I'm changing it into a Pike Champion - basically, a regular Uruk-hai Champion, but armed with pike or halberd. The file above is updated with this new unit.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 18, 2012, 05:13:33 PM
It makes more sense to give berserkers some sort of reach weapon. Historically the people who fought as naked fanatics usually had rather big shields and swords/spears. And were mostly completely doped up on insanity, painkillers and/or hallucinogenic mushrooms to keep fighting longer.

Perhaps this is somewhat able to be simulated in the game by giving Uruk berserkers ridiculously high iron flesh stats? So they might be able to take multiple arrows that would kill regular unarmored Uruks.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 18, 2012, 05:26:24 PM
It's already ridiculously high - they have about 80 hp, PS of a top-level elf, high athletics, highest profs among the orcs and they still suck, thus making a stub out of the pikemen line. It's better to have proper top-level pikemen/halberdiers IMO. I'd have left the berserkers as separate unit (for those masochists who'd go for training a top-level troop to see it die in its first fight), but my troop editor doesn't allow me to create new troops.

Look on the bright side - instead of a dubious unit (that obviously was a tribute to the movie, since Uruk-hai didn't have berserkers in the books) you get a proper pike/halberd line, both strong and providing interesting tactical opportunities (and outright cool).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Grothag on March 19, 2012, 12:06:35 AM
OOps so that came  from Gortha mod, mear and  armored horses asked 7 riding....sorry.
On argoment someone can post last troops file , it seems rather stable now.

There are only 3 mounts with 7 req - Mordor Sinister horse, Mearh and Huge warg. Made them that way, as those are the elite of the mounts and very difficult to submit beasts(lore wise) and they're half an army on the battlefield(gameplay wise).

Quote
Hmm, I've noticed that the majority of Umbar troops lack shields in combat, yet have them in the troops file. This really nerfs the corsairs, what's causing it and how to fix it?

UPD. Ok, the issue's solved, the "Shield" flag was off on them. Also, sorted out the Thranduil Royal Spearmen -  now they're spearmen with shields, not guys with knives - and gave shields to Brego guards.

Here's an updated file, please use it, if you're planning to test corsairs: http://www.wupload.com/file/2676984962/troops.txt .

UPD.2. The Uruk-hai Berserker appears to be totally worthless. Whatever stats I give to it, it's still a downgrade, not an uprgade. So I'm changing it into a Pike Champion - basically, a regular Uruk-hai Champion, but armed with pike or halberd. The file above is updated with this new unit.

Yeah - there are lots of troops in the file with messed up equipment and missing or wronged flags. I've tweaked most of the troops equipment in my file and the fact is that the equipment is the biggest factor - give the best troop the crappiest weapon and armour and give a snaga the best equipment and the snaga will win everytime for sure.

The berserker bigger weakness is it's low armour stats. If we had the option(like in warband) to make them separate unit from other inf, so we can use them for flank/rear attacks, everything would be fine. In my file I gave them the best shock weapons available for isengard and they really can cut through everything, but they die easy indeed, as they should, since they lack heavy armour....There is an option to give them the best  isengard armour and they'll become 1 of the best troops for sure.

P.S. Latter today I'll upload my newest troop and items files. I'll wait till you finalize your troops.txt to test it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 19, 2012, 02:59:02 AM
I need some more feedback before that. Especially, concerning Rhun.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: GondorKnight on March 19, 2012, 04:52:34 AM
However giving the Berserkers armour sort of break the whole idea- what so different between them and elite line troops?
If armours have types then we may have fun.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 19, 2012, 04:58:49 AM
However giving the Berserkers armour sort of break the whole idea- what so different between them and elite line troops?
If armours have types then we may have fun.

I agree, that's why I changed them. I've tested them really extensively and they're unsalvageable, there's no way to make them useful without giving them heavy armor.

So let's stick to testing Rhun, Beornings, dwarves and elves, that's where feedback is needed.

EDIT:
BTW, guys, how about bundling RCM up with Warband animations mod? So that people don't have to manipulate those module.ini files manually.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Annuinir Thanguridhren on March 20, 2012, 07:37:48 PM
That would be much appreciated haha
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 21, 2012, 05:07:40 AM
Ok, after some more testing I have to say that bumping up Rhun PS ruins the immersion and goes against the spirit of realistic modeling that is the whole point of RCM. I guess it's time for the nuclear solution - lower their naked-buttness by giving heavy armor to the third-tier troops (except mounted archers). I think I'll also re-think that armor's stats, as 30 for body is probably too low. I'll have to compare its visuals to Dale armors. The racial bonuses shall be +1 Riding/ +1 Horse Archery.

UPD. Here are the new files:

http://www.wupload.com/file/2677828757/troops.txt
http://www.wupload.com/file/2677828762/item_kinds1.txt

The armor has same body armor stats as the Gundabad one, as it seems to be the closest in visual terms. Dale armor is, on closer inspection, better. Still, with this re-balancing Rhun should become much stronger. Please, test it specifically both as your own faction and as your enemy.

EDIT
Ok, Rhun's fine now and the far northern campaign is playable for both sides, added shields and some helmets to Dale troops too. The elves and dwarves seem to be sufficiently nerfed, though I haven't tested them as my own troops yet. I'll test these two and the Beornings and I guess that'll be it. After finishing up the troops, I'll re-make the item prices and then put up the new RCM for download.

Please note that, since no one, apparently, is doing any testing apart from me, whatever balance comes out as a final version would be whatever I manage to make of it. Obviously, I cannot do extensive testing on my own and I have to rely on my previous experience in TLD and on a small amount of test combats. Besides that, any kind of balance  is the interpretation of lore and reality by its maker. So if you don't like the resulting balance, you'll have to either get your hands dirty and modify it yourself, or blame yourself for not participating in the testing.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Annuinir Thanguridhren on March 22, 2012, 07:53:38 AM
If you haven't tested elves much yet I've been planning on doing that I've just been busy
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 22, 2012, 10:48:38 AM
Please do, any kind of feedback (even "everything's cool") would be very much appreciated.

I'll be testing Beornings and dwarves first, then.

EDIT
Concerning the Beornings. First, half their troops are compromised of Woodsmen, not Beornings (those related to Beorn, I presume). These should have regular human stats. For Beornings themselves, I think I'll give +1 PS and +2 IF. Giving more PS makes combat look a bit unreasonable, the same way it did with Rhun. So they'll probably be akin to the good side's Dunlanders, a weaker faction for those who want a challenging game. Still, they should be playable and I'll test them some more.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: The Yogi on March 22, 2012, 11:55:08 AM
Could you please bundle the two files in one archive? Otherwise free download requires 45 minutes of waiting between the two.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 22, 2012, 01:23:45 PM
Thanks for pointing it out!

http://www.wupload.com/file/2678353427/New_RCM_test.7z
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 23, 2012, 06:32:23 AM
I've been following everything in the background so far. All changes look very well thought out and make sense. High tier bare chested troops are a huge problem for several factions and it's good to see you address it. PS for troops look good so far too. Good job!

I hope to get some playtime in this weekend, but real life keeps getting in the way.  :(
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 23, 2012, 09:27:44 AM
Please share some feedback after you play.

EDIT
The Dwarves were messed up - half of them had padded armor instead of mails. I corrected this. Also, nerfed the orcish skills to those of the same level humans, as the orcs were op. I'd like to request some feedback on the orcs (not Uruks, so preferably test them with Moria or Gundabad), how they feel in combat as enemies and your own troops, as they're still not entirely clear to me from the balancing point of view.

Here's the updated file:
http://www.wupload.com/file/2678631047/New_RCM_test_2.7z
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 24, 2012, 06:25:46 AM
I've been testing the Moria orcs for a while now and I've noticed that I need overwhelming odds to win against anything really. You really need a high number of wargs. Orcs, especially at the lower tier, don't seem to have any troops that can take arrow fire for a while before dying, so it's a matter of attrition by overwhelming numbers. 3 or 4 to 1 odds. Which is like the books I guess.

The problem to me seems to be in logistics. I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect the player to be able to gather a large amount of troops like that and train them to a level they'll be effective at. Especially against Lothlorien and Rivendell I'm unsure if there's even a possibility of ever winning a large battle. Against the Lothlorien patrol I tested I estimate that I need about 150 to 200 orcs to beat them.

Adventures of the Moria Orcs

Lothlorien patrol
56 vs 50
56 dead / 7 dead
notes: absolutely got annihilated by them. Arrows took out half of my troops before the fight even started. Wargs made the only kills.

56 vs 25 
56 dead / 7 dead
Notes: still got annihilated. Of note was that it took about 6 orcs swarming a single swords-elf to take it down. Even then the elf was able to take out 2.

56 vs 20
56 dead / 12 dead
Notes: Arrows cut down my troops like flies. After that it's a rather easy cleanup for the swords-elf. As soon as my wargs go down, I go down. It seems one elf arrow is able to strike down an orc most of the time. Two at the very most.

Rivendell
56 top tier orcs vs 7 Rivendell scouts
0 orcs died vs 7 Rivendell scouts died
Notes: Easy win. Wargs and archers cut them down. Rivendell scouts are very lightly armored.

Dunedain
56 top tier orcs vs 36 Dunedain patrol
31 died vs 36 died
Notes: Wargs are really important here. Archers are the biggest problem once again. Cavalry is pretty tough, but very doable once you swarm them down. Dunedain infantry gets cut down 3 vs 1.



Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 24, 2012, 11:39:57 AM
Thanks, hayate, this is exactly the type of feedback I need!

I've done some of my own testing of Moria and I was able to defeat those 50-elf patrols at about 2-to-1 odds with all troops being of 3-4 tier (that's roughly Leadership 6 or 7 party) with losses of around 35 orcs, mostly wolfriders. The army composition was something like 25% archers, 25% wolfriders, 50% infantry. Could you give me your approximate party compositions and troop tiers, the ones used against the Lorien patrols?

If it's possible, could you also test some larger Moria lords vs. Elven lords battles? Maybe lure some elven army to your own, or just use Ctrl+Space to fast-scroll time until they start a battle themselves. Moria lords vs. elven patrols (like the 50-elf ones you fought) would be nice too.

The problem to me seems to be in logistics. I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect the player to be able to gather a large amount of troops like that and train them to a level they'll be effective at. Especially against Lothlorien and Rivendell I'm unsure if there's even a possibility of ever winning a large battle.

Logistics is a big problem for Moria, that's true. Though there are certain factors working in their favor: the orcs are very easy to train and a high-intellect NPC is available for hire at Moria Gates, so he can be turned into a trainer (and you can always boost him with the training bonus from you character, or do it all vice verca), the wolfriders are very efficient in drawing the archers' attention, which offers some great tactical opportunities and the top-tier orcs are quite good at melee and not bad at range either. The wolfriders are third-tier troops and orcs, so a high-level trainer should be able to produce them even without training troops through combat. And this issue is so big only for Moria - Gundabad and Dol Guldur can train their troops at leisure on Beornings, so I'm pretty sure this logistics problem can be overcome with them. Perhaps Moria is doable too?

Also, Lorien troops are the toughest among the elves - but, perhaps, Rivindell is easier? After all, they're the first main enemy for Moria. We really need some more testing here. And I'll test the elves, so that we know how it feels from their side.

P.S. Please make sure you're using the latest test files!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Annuinir Thanguridhren on March 24, 2012, 01:31:30 PM
Sorry I was going to do some testing for the elves but my internet has been down so I can't download the newest files

Edit: I'm posting from my phone
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 24, 2012, 03:41:56 PM
Well, the elves are definitely OP, as far as I can see. I'll nerf them down to +2 Athletics, +1 to all primary stats (except Athletics),+1 to all secondary stats starting with tier 2. The file'll be up for download to tomorrow.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 24, 2012, 05:09:55 PM
First win against a Lothlorien patrol!

77 top tier (!)  Moria orcs versus 50 Lothlorien scouts
Troop mix: 24 Bolg Clan Warg Riders, 28 Fell Goblins 25 Fell Goblin archers.

Results: 42 died. 19 Warg Riders, 16 archers and 7 melee goblins died.

Notes: Every single Elf troop is deadly. The archers weren't the biggest problem this time, because as soon they were out of arrows they started dying. The swords-elves however were a different story. They cut down Warg Riders as they charge through them, allowing their archers to live a lot longer and become a real pain. Their infantry doesn't seem to die to my archers and only started dying after they engaged my own infantry. They got charged in the back by 19 riderless wargs which messed up their focus so they got chopped up pretty quickly. That was only after they walked up to and killed every archer that was present at the battle.


The main problem after this battle isn't that I lost a lot of troops, it's mostly that after every fight I'm in no shape to continue campaigning and need to wait until I can replenish everything. Also, with lower tier troops this battle was not winnable at all. Surgery is really important to balance this out.

After surgery I got 51 troops remaining out of 77. This is pretty acceptable.

==============================================================================
Elves are definitely on the OP side of things, but at high levels they are pretty much supposed to be superhuman. I hope this can be balanced correctly without ruining the Elf player experience.

Somehow I experience Mirkwood as pretty balanced Elves. I really needed to get shock infantry from another race, because my own infantry and archers weren't quite enough to stop a horde of goblins charging at me without losses. The armor of the Mirkwood elves seems to be just a bit weaker then that of Lorien and you really notice the difference in their melee infantry line.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 24, 2012, 05:39:13 PM
The nerf isn't large, but it might just weaken them enough to make the situation less of a one-way game. I think Mirkwood will be balanced after this and, hopefully, Rivendell will be too (at least, much of their troops are Dunedain, that are significantly weaker then the elves). If Lorien will continue to be OP, I'll start stripping their archers of heavy armor tier-by-tier.

Well, at least everything else seems to be fine. After we do the elves, I'll start changing the prices. This'll probably take a couple of days, so there'll be time for people to test the final version a bit before it gets released.

EDIT
Here are the new files - http://www.wupload.com/file/2679561867/New_RCM_test_3.2.7z
Please don't forget to provide feedback after you play with them.

EDIT 2
The link has been updated with some changes to Mirkwood.

EDIT 3
One more update of the link. I've finally found what made the Thranduil Royal Spearmen not use their shields - their spears were erroneously marked as two-handed. This is now corrected and both of the Mirkwood top-tier melee units are usable on the battlefield.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: The Yogi on March 26, 2012, 12:57:56 AM
I realize it is hard to achieve proper balance between the factions in TLD. But just for the record, if true to the books, 77 orcs of any kind against 50 elves of any kind should end up as an unmitigated slaughter of orcs. If the elves take any casualties at all it would be, I guess from some stray arrow and bad luck.

77 against 5, then yes, the elves would go down, taking three or four times their number of orcs with them.

Of course, for that to be fun and playable in M&B, the elves would have to be 5-10 where the orcs are 50-100. And that would screw up autocalced battles.

It just grates on me when players harp about OP elves, when in fact they have, in the interest of playability, been nerfed down by an order of magnitude at least.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 26, 2012, 01:41:57 AM
No, not of any kind. Heavily armored orcs were quite lethal to the lightly armored Ossiriand elves in the Silmarillion. If the elves are Noldor-style heavily armored troops, then yes, the 77 vs. 50 would be a slaughter and it actually is that way in the game too.

But this kind of discussion is pure fantasy anyway, neither the elves nor the orcs are uniform, they differ in individual quality as fighters, they differ in armament, in unit cohesion. Then the tactical situation comes in - do the orcs manage to ambush the elves, do they manage to get close without taking heavy casualties from archer fire, how many of the elves are archers etc. Then comes the non-linear effect of numerical superiority - the more we increase one force or the other, the easier it would be for that force to overwhelm its opponent and the less casualties it  will take, if it's able to properly utilize its numerical advantage. So, 500 orcs attacking a column of elves from behind cover would win with very light casualties as the elves will be overrun. The  same force attacking 50 elven archers head-on, or elven heavy infantry in tight formation, would take serious casualties before winning (and if the orcs are of lower quality and the elves are a heavy infantry unit with good cohesion, the elves will probably win - BTW, this'll happen in TLD too if you pit a huge force of snagas against the higher-tier elven infantry).

Game-wise, the autocalc puts limits on what the party composition can  be, unfortunately. Calibrating it with levels has limits too and that's the only way to calibrate it without affecting tactical combat. Still, I can affect the realism, general lore correspondence and balance somewhat by changing troop armor, which has a large effect on combat results.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 26, 2012, 06:40:14 AM
The reason I won that 77 vs 50 battle was that riderless Wargs kept messing up the aim of the elves so my troops could cut them down in the back. Had that not happened they would have still killed me with little loss on their side. But I understand what Yogi is getting at.

Yet it seems to me that Elves shouldn't be all that secure in being able to withstand Sauron. Why would the war in the North even be a problem if they can easily take anything Sauron can throw at them? There should be a certain tension within the limits of this game engine so it isn't a complete cakewalk for an Elven player.

Perhaps this issue can be handled by giving an orc player a huge bonus to leadership, so you're actually able to field 200 orcs against an elven patrol? As I said, logistics is the biggest problem for Moria. If I can get 200 or 300 orcs, pay them and feed them then I won't have a problem with elves being a lot stronger than me.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 26, 2012, 08:31:45 AM
I'm not really worried about elven players with current stats - leveling those troops up and keeping them alive will be enough of a challenge. The elven campaign won't be as challenging as, for example, Moria one, but it will still be fun to play and give enough challenge to the player.

What I want to do is make the campaign playable for Gundabad and, especially, Moria. Obviously, this shouldn't come at the expense of realism or lore, that's why we're trying to find proper balance here.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: The Yogi on March 26, 2012, 10:34:11 AM
Yes you're right of course, Rene. There are tactical situations in which 77 orcs, or even a lesser number, could conceivably wipe out a force of 50 elves with few or no casualties. And of course it should matter if they are heavily armoured black Uruks or sniveling snagas.

On the other hand, the current tier system is not a good representation of elves. There would be virtually no low-tier elves. The vast majority of them are hundreds of years old if not thousands and have been practising their combat skills for much of that time. From a representation standpoint, the lowest tier elf should be equal to the highest tier human, and perhaps only rise one or two tiers in the whole game. But again, how fun would that be for the elven player?

I think you have struck a good balance between playability, lore and realism.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 26, 2012, 10:48:40 AM
I think you have struck a good balance between playability, lore and realism.

Thanks!

I would really appreciate a little feedback on elves with new stats, from the point of view of evil side factions (the elves themselves feel ok to play with). I'll be testing them myself today, but additional opinions would be nice as this is a delicate problem.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 26, 2012, 02:40:39 PM
Well, guys, this is about all I can do. Nerfing the elves further would screw up the lore, while boosting the orcs would screw up the balance. I don't know if Moria can be successfully played, perhaps some resourceful and daring player will start their campaign and share the experience with us.

The test files you have are the latest. It'll take me a couple of days to finish the prices and then I'll release the updated RCM. It would be nice if you did some testing during this time, so that campaigns are not messed up if I'd have to modify the already released version.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 27, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
Combat feels a lot better now. Elves are still able to kill me easily, but if I swarm them with warg and melee infantry they tend to die. Not really much to add besides that. It just works.  :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 27, 2012, 05:27:38 PM
Good, that's how it's meant to be, after all. I'll be finished with the prices in approximately three-four days, I think.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Annuinir Thanguridhren on March 27, 2012, 06:24:53 PM
Are you still adding the bigger food quantities and also did you already add in the warband animation fix?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 28, 2012, 01:06:57 AM
The warband fix is already there. Good  thing you reminded me of those food quantities! How large do you want them to be - double size, triple size?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Annuinir Thanguridhren on March 28, 2012, 08:06:52 AM
Could there be multiple sizes? Because sometimes, especially starting out, if you make it all triple sized there will be times when you won't be able to afford food especially trying to quickly amass a larger army or making new campaigns in lands where you haven't built up resources and such. So at times you're going to need just enough to get by on but once you start getting lots of resources and especially lots of troops that's when you'll need the bigger food sizes. So IF possible I'd say make 1-5x food sizes available. And if not then I'd say 2x would be big enough to help out campaigning long term while still being affordable starting out. Just my thoughts
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 28, 2012, 09:29:16 AM
I'll try 1x and 3x. If it doesn't work, I'll just make it 2x. Note that I won't be doing that to Beef, Lembas and Human Flesh.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ettore53 on March 28, 2012, 12:04:28 PM
Can you tell us if you think that your submod will be compatible with next  LAST patch or there will be  big problems to update it?  I suspect that next patch will have many news and surprises.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 28, 2012, 12:12:23 PM
This is a community-made submod, not my own. Ron Losey made the equipment, me and Grothag rebalanced the troops, several other people participated heavily in discussions and offered some valuable advices.

I don't know if there'll be any new content added that will be relevant to RCM. If there will be, we'll either update the submod ourselves or (if that's not possible) ask GetAssista to do it, like he did with the last patch.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ettore53 on March 28, 2012, 04:22:59 PM
OK thank you for fast reply, I image if mod is only on 2 files without script interference that will not be a big problem.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: GondorKnight on March 29, 2012, 03:12:33 AM
Eh....
May I ask if there is a latest 'full package' available?
Or what to pick up(which page and which file for the full RCM experience)?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 29, 2012, 03:19:55 AM
http://www.wupload.com/file/2681120237/RCM_2.0_unfinished.7z

Use this one. The prices are only fixed for Gondor and Rivendell, but everything else is finalized.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: GondorKnight on March 29, 2012, 03:27:32 AM
The 'ani_attack.brf' is included......
Is that the animation submod recommended by the team?
EDIT: It seems that they are the same thing.

Some minor report: it seems that the item settings are a bit off......
Or is it related to the savegames?
I resume my saves after applying the updates, however my characters seems unable to equip some gears that they have been using.

Like the Gondor noble of Minas Tirith unable to wear the Tower Knight Armour, nor the Dol Amroth Greaves.
And the Dunedain Ranger unable to equip the Anorian Splinted Greaves.

They are matching for their race, however the message tells that they are not suitable.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 29, 2012, 04:14:19 AM
Could you try starting the new game and testing them there? I didn't change anything except prices.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: GondorKnight on March 29, 2012, 04:35:43 AM
Ahh.....
Sadly it seems that indeed there is problem.
Not even new game prevent that.
(And it seems that price may be related, as GA said that the race setting is hidden in the price)

And how can I attach some screenshots?  :-[
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 29, 2012, 10:30:27 AM
Here, use these files, I've corrected the issue. Thanks for mentioning it.

http://www.wupload.com/file/2681217252/New_RCM_unfinished_2.0.7z
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: GondorKnight on March 29, 2012, 09:45:16 PM
Great! Now it works perfect. (AFAIK:) )

BTW: Just after some wandering, I found a troop named 'Beorning Tolltacker'.
I never paid attention before (as I didn't play the Elves nor Dunedain to observe these Beorning enough)
But it seems wrong to have 'Toll' and 'tacker' together. I wonder if it is 'Trolltracker'?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Pingpong on March 30, 2012, 11:05:12 AM
Heh I always assumed it meant "tack" as in a tack hammer... but I'm guessing you're right and it was supposed to be "tracker"
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 30, 2012, 12:11:30 PM
Well guys, here it goes. You can download RCM 2.0 using this link:

http://www.wupload.com/file/2681535532/RCM_2.0_for_TLD.7z

I'll give a couple of days for some final testing, then PM the link to GA to put it up in the submods thread.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: SonOfNiall on March 30, 2012, 02:45:15 PM
Guess tolltacker is correct and intentional as Gloin complains to Frodo in Rivendell about the beorings taking high trade tolls from the dwarves
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: bearlyfunctional on March 30, 2012, 02:54:31 PM
Great job! I'm playing as the elves and its somewhat more challenging, in a good way.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 30, 2012, 03:28:22 PM
Great job! I'm playing as the elves and its somewhat more challenging, in a good way.

Thanks! Please keep an eye out for possible bugs.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on March 31, 2012, 04:25:17 PM
Playing as the Elves is really fun now. Elves feel strong where they should be and are somehow a lot more challenging then before.

I did notice however it's much much easier to survive against multiple opponents. I used to get stunlocked a lot more with previous RCM versions. This is an indirect nerf to the orcs as they are pretty much required to swarm stronger troops to kill them. 5- 6 orcs still bring me down, but 3 - 4 are having a very hard time doing so.

Cavalry charges are harder to stop with grouped up infantry then before. A horse can charge through multiple guys standing behind each other. I'm not sure this is an intended change, since horses should be scared of charging into anything looking remotely solid.

I also noticed Rohan and Gondor really getting their asses handed to them in my play through. Did RCM change something about the autocalc battles? Eomer died just a few days in the war which has never happened to me before.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 31, 2012, 05:19:41 PM
The problem with 0 interrupt threshold was that the rider received 0 damage every time his horse was hit, which effectively stun-locked him and made cavalry useless on the battlefield. As for the infantry combat, this parameter is basically open to interpretation - we can either think of 0 damage as enough of a nuisance to be an interruption, or just a hit that failed to even make a sufficient bruise (to which 1 damage would amount to), hence not penetrating at all and not cumbersome. I've tested this issue pretty extensively - threshold of 1 feels way better then 0 and 0 makes cavalry vs. infantry combat totally unrealistic.

No, autocalc is untouched. Things go  differently sometimes between the AIs, I guess it's just another example of this.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: The Yogi on April 04, 2012, 03:39:35 PM
Well guys, here it goes. You can download RCM 2.0 using this link:

No, actually we can not:

Quote from: wupload
Note:

Wupload does not allow files to be shared. We are a STORAGE ONLY product so you can only download your own files.

If you have uploaded this file yourself, login first in order to download it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 04, 2012, 04:50:09 PM
Re-uploaded:

http://www.4shared.com/archive/Kom1JKa1/RCM_20_for_TLD.html
https://hotfile.com/dl/151944593/8834793/RCM_2.0_for_TLD.7z.html
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ettore53 on April 07, 2012, 04:13:20 AM
A suggestion:
Change basic equipment ....for example  a  beginning noble gondorian has no sword  and guards call him commander.  This is not realistic.

Some problems and suggestions
New loss system changes balance in many things.
For example 1)prisoner quest is now very hard as it is harder to get prisoners.
                     2) More losses change money balance: 1)as you neeed to get often recruits
                                                                                    2) for (1) long quests are almost impossible without returning to base
                                                                                    3) It is harder to get high tier troops
 Suggestion to rebalance: have more surger effect if army survives So it needs sometime to heals wounded men.
Other realistic effect suggestion on lance: Make lances easy breakable so AI and player have to leaves them after first or second  charge.

                       











Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 07, 2012, 07:45:03 AM
I haven't looked into changing starting equipment, but the player discards it so quickly, that I doubt it's worth the effort to make any changes.

As for the problems and suggestions:
1 - I've played RCM since it was released for TLD and never had problems neither with taking prisoners, nor with the prisoner quest.
2 - it might be harder then vanilla, but vanilla is currently way too easy to be a reference. Lowering the challenge level would make the game plain boring.

I doubt it's possible to make lances breakable in Mount and Blade.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ettore53 on April 07, 2012, 08:19:51 AM
Basic equipment is so in Vanilla but as your mod is realistic: I doubt that a "mercenary" commander  could  not have  sword beginning military carrier ( suggest to give him a basic sword and a basic horse if noble- a noble without them is a elf without bow..
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Pingpong on April 07, 2012, 11:33:50 AM
Where do I install this? Just over TLD?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 07, 2012, 03:56:31 PM
Just drop the contents of the archive to your Mount&Blade/Modules/TLD folder.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Noob4boob on April 08, 2012, 03:20:22 AM
Hey can you upload version 3.1 again? The one above is 2.0. I need the latest version of this. BTW no one can actually download your file except the 2.0 version..
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Noob4boob on April 08, 2012, 03:29:32 AM
It's already ridiculously high - they have about 80 hp, PS of a top-level elf, high athletics, highest profs among the orcs and they still suck, thus making a stub out of the pikemen line. It's better to have proper top-level pikemen/halberdiers IMO. I'd have left the berserkers as separate unit (for those masochists who'd go for training a top-level troop to see it die in its first fight), but my troop editor doesn't allow me to create new troops.


Easy, you have to open the troop.txt file. Then open it and then copy a troop's text then paste it at the bottom. For each troop you add you must add a +1 on the number at the top of troop.txt.

So if you add 5 new troops, then you need to add 5 to 901
troopsfile version 1
901

=
troopsfile version 1
906

TO add a new troop:

copy any troop text on troop.txt and paste it at bottom.

So something like this will be fine:

trp_player Player Player 268435472 0 0 23 0 0
  -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0
  4 4 4 4 0
 15 15 15 15 0 15 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
  6442451009 3952873730080618203 1947355 0 0 0 0 0

change the troop name and equipment by using the troop editor, for example if this is uruk -hai elite pikeman. go to uruk hai pikeman and add a upgrade path so it can upgrade into uruk-hai elite pikeman. give him stats and equipment, save and go to game then you will see them appear. Also make sure you have the skin for the uruk hai correct (skin 6), because skin 1 is for human.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 08, 2012, 03:36:48 AM
Then the useful heavily armored top-tier pikemen would be left out of the AI parties, while the useless berserker would be present in them.

Thanks for the advice, though. Maybe I'll add the berserker once again sometime later (I still have doubts about its necessity - it really is useless in combat).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Noob4boob on April 08, 2012, 03:39:11 AM
Hey can you upload version 3.1 again? The one above is 2.0. I need the latest version of this. BTW no one can actually download your file except the 2.0 version..


i want to have version 3.1 of your RCM and not version 2.0 plz. Can you upload it game front or something like that>? Only take a sec?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 08, 2012, 03:40:50 AM
Forget about the 3.1 number, that was version 1 for TLD 3.1:) Version 2.0 is the up-to-date one, with updated troops and prices.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Noob4boob on April 08, 2012, 03:42:36 AM
Forget about the 3.1 number, that was version 1 for TLD 3.1:) Version 2.0 is the up-to-date one, with updated troops and prices.

that is very confusing, omg thank you. i will try yours out right now :D. i am a codder too but i have been retire XD. adding troops is very easy without python, just takes some little time. will report any issue if i find any thank you

btw the download link you posted the second one is dead. the first one require some register thingy, people may not want to download because of that, once i downloaded it i will upload it in a new linK;

here we are:  http://www.mediafire.com/?sosrorbtljg3eib

Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 08, 2012, 03:45:06 AM
Maybe you know, how to mod this thing here - http://mbx.streetofeyes.com/index.php/topic,2740.0.html ? Any kind of help would be greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Noob4boob on April 08, 2012, 04:16:15 AM
ok something i notice so far, how come then nomad bow has more damage than the strong bow and the nomad bow is cheaper and faster :O
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 08, 2012, 04:35:04 AM
Nomad bow has 1 less PD then the strong bow, while all other stats are pretty much the same (due to certain properties of MnB physics almost all missile damage is carried by arrows, not bows).

Here's the post with the price formulas:
http://mbx.streetofeyes.com/index.php/topic,2492.msg62388.html#msg62388
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Noob4boob on April 08, 2012, 04:38:26 AM
Nomad bow has 1 less PD then the strong bow, while all other stats are pretty much the same (due to certain properties of MnB physics almost all missile damage is carried by arrows, not bows).

Here's the post with the price formulas:
http://mbx.streetofeyes.com/index.php/topic,2492.msg62388.html#msg62388

very smart indeed, you are right :D
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ettore53 on April 09, 2012, 02:45:33 PM
1) Tower shield and  other heavy shield  that in Vanilla cannot be used on horse  in submod can be used same for heavy bow and 2hands sword...not much realistic probably a bug.
2)Spy quest almost impossible without blunt maces
3)Raise troop quest almost impossible  as high cuases make very hard to raise  group od  med troop to tier troops
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: bearlyfunctional on April 09, 2012, 03:07:23 PM
1) I'm pretty sure that's intentional, since there is no reason why you wouldn't be able to use a large bow/sword/shield from horseback... the reduction to your accuracy/speed is enough to balance realism and gameplay.

2) With spy quest you only need to capture one of the guys. Hold fire, use blunt weapons, and charge and you shouldn't lose practically anyone, provided that you have a lot of men. Also, try using a club, I keep one in my inventory for precisely such a situation. It does make it tougher, but not impossible.

3)I haven't noticed this that much... but a good solution is kissing up to Lothlorien and using the resources for companions mod to get Glorfindel. With him all of your troops tier up quickly without even fighting.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 09, 2012, 04:29:16 PM
The bows' usability from horseback wasn't changed from vanilla. Don't know for the swords, but that was Ron's work and he's pretty keen on these things. I personally don't remember any decidedly unrealistic situations - weapons that really would be unwieldy IRL cannot be used from horseback in the submod.

Bearlyfunctional summed up the other two questions well. I might only add that you should only take the train troops quests if you or your companions have high training skill (which is kind of reasonable). Though I personally never take it at all, preferring to keep high-tier troops for my own use.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ettore53 on April 09, 2012, 05:24:21 PM
 In Vanilla Long bows  and 2h swords as tower shields were no horse use. probably changing them  no horse use  is lossed. Give a look when you will have some time.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Carthean on April 10, 2012, 08:12:42 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I noticed (or at least feel like) that it's actually harder to kill top tier orcs than it is to kill top-tier Black Numenoreans or Uruks. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: GondorKnight on April 10, 2012, 11:58:04 PM
Nomad bow has 1 less PD then the strong bow, while all other stats are pretty much the same (due to certain properties of MnB physics almost all missile damage is carried by arrows, not bows).

Here's the post with the price formulas:
http://mbx.streetofeyes.com/index.php/topic,2492.msg62388.html#msg62388
A question I've always wanted to ask: How does PD works?
Does the higher requirement makes PD gives a larger bonus?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 11, 2012, 02:16:32 AM
The bow is allowed to have a max PD bonus of 4 + PD requirement. So the bigger the PD requirement, the larger bonus a high PD skill gives you.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: GondorKnight on April 11, 2012, 05:21:15 AM
So a bow of PD 2 have a base bonus of +28%, and up to +84%;
while a bow of PD 6 have a base bonus of +84%, and up to +140%?

I always perceive that wrongly with the base bonus omitted.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ettore53 on April 11, 2012, 06:03:49 AM
And this could explain a strange cheap  fine bow( in Gondor shop)that ask only 1 skill and makes 13 damage
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: GondorKnight on April 17, 2012, 07:53:28 AM
Larger bows are always better, not only because of the larger PD bonus possible, but also the velocity and the straight flight path that comes with it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 25, 2012, 02:13:12 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/?sosrorbtljg3eib  - the latest version of RCM for TLD, just to remind you people.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Wild Rover on May 01, 2012, 03:06:01 AM
Does anybody have an idea how to beat a troll, other than showering him with arrows?
It was pretty easy before, you just needed a long spear, keep your distance and poke him from time to time. But it is kind of useless with RCM. My pike just keeps dealing 0 damage. So tell me, is there any way to kill a troll without being a absurdly badass ranger?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 01, 2012, 03:19:39 AM
Good quality troops (like Elves) kill the trolls in melee rather easily, so it's definitely possible. Try using some heavy-hitting two-handed weapon. Preferably, aim for the head ( you might need to jump for that).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 01, 2012, 06:02:14 AM
http://www.mediafire.com/?ngjhugzxjydazcq - RCM version 2.01 for TLD. Fixed minor bug with simple clothes having wrong racial type.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: MariusThePaladin on May 06, 2012, 02:31:39 AM
Hi, I've noticed one thing that is possibly break the lore (I'm not sure) but aren't Beorne people too weak ?

 I know they're armed with axe and lightly (or no) armored, but didn't Tolkien describe them as the bear people. The people who could tansform in to bear and are as strong as bear that they could tear the warg by their bare hand ?

They just got slaughtered by orcs when I join their fight.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 06, 2012, 02:46:06 AM
Hi, I've noticed one thing that is possibly break the lore (I'm not sure) but aren't Beorne people too weak ?

 I know they're armed with axe and lightly (or no) armored, but didn't Tolkien describe them as the bear people. The people who could tansform in to bear and are as strong as bear that they could tear the warg by their bare hand ?

They just got slaughtered by orcs when I join their fight.

IIRC, Tolkien only described Beorn himself that way, maybe his direct descendants, not all the humans who live west of Mirkwood and belong to the Beorning realm. Nevertheless, it is assumed both in vanilla TLD and in RCM that the Beornings are stronger then average humans and their stats reflect this.

Problem is, the devs designed them to be only lightly armored. Since RCM attempts to model combat realistically, lightly armored troops die very easily in it. Rhun had this problem too and I had to give heavier armor to many of their troops, but Rhun at least had that heavier armor in the first place. Beornings don't, unfortunately. Still, they're very hard-hitting, both melee and ranged troops, so they can and do cause damage. Just don't expect them to hold their ground well - light infantry just isn't properly equipped for that.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: MariusThePaladin on May 06, 2012, 03:50:24 AM
Ok, thanks for this great submod. RCM let me play in the manner as if I'm as skilled as one of the fellowship.  8)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Wild Rover on May 06, 2012, 06:17:50 AM
+Good evening, sergeant. I wish to report a burglary: in Calembel, veteran lamedon armor in for sale, and is both cheaper and weaker than (ordinary) lamedon armor. Besides, it algo gives you +55 head armour.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 06, 2012, 06:51:23 AM
Fixed. Thank you! Dwarven armors having human racial type fixed too.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/4jzapbftsfsumvb/RCM_2.02_for_TLD.7z - RCM version 2.02 for TLD.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 08, 2012, 06:34:08 AM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/su5rut1w0uabdvy/RCM_beta_temp.7z - temporary version, compatible with the beta patch.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on May 08, 2012, 06:27:27 PM
I've been playing on and off lately. Balance feels great so far. Nothing to complain! I've mostly been playing Rivendell and Mirkwood, but when the new patch is out of beta I'll probably start over as a dwarf.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Anterias on May 09, 2012, 12:05:59 AM
You won't need to start over it's compatible, except companion costs or something.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 09, 2012, 07:40:42 AM
I've been playing on and off lately. Balance feels great so far. Nothing to complain! I've mostly been playing Rivendell and Mirkwood, but when the new patch is out of beta I'll probably start over as a dwarf.

Has my tactics guide affected your decision?:)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 09, 2012, 11:55:21 AM
IF, JUST IF, I don't like this (not saying I will), can I delete it?  Or, how can I revert back to vanilla TLD?  And also, do I need to install patch 2.01 to install 2.02?  Tambien, where are the files supposed to go?  Does the installer do this for me?

Just throw the archive contents into your M&B/Modules/TLD folder and overwrite the files already there. To revert back to vanilla, copy the vanilla files back and overwrite the RCM files with them.

You don't need previous versions, just use the latest one.

Finally, do I need to worry about this if I just want RCM?

If you're using the beta patch - yes, you do. If you're gonna use TLD 3.13, use RCM 2.02.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on May 09, 2012, 05:51:39 PM
I've been playing on and off lately. Balance feels great so far. Nothing to complain! I've mostly been playing Rivendell and Mirkwood, but when the new patch is out of beta I'll probably start over as a dwarf.

Has my tactics guide affected your decision?:)
No. Dwarves were just next on my list.  :P
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: reaver456 on May 12, 2012, 05:10:19 PM
Is the beta RCM patch compatible with the new 3.15 release?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 12, 2012, 05:16:11 PM
Should be, though I have to check one thing first to be absolutely sure.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 13, 2012, 01:37:07 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/76j78q3bkgn4dcb/RCM_2.04_for_TLD.7z - version 2.04, compatible with TLD 3.15. No Warband animations for now, unfortunately, since that mod is currently not compatible with TLD 3.15.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: reaver456 on May 14, 2012, 01:46:02 AM
Sweet Cheers mate!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: MariusThePaladin on May 17, 2012, 05:08:11 AM
Version 2.02 got deleted. Could you please reupload it ?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 17, 2012, 07:25:25 AM
Why would you want to have it? It's obsolete, use 2.04.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Annuinir Thanguridhren on May 17, 2012, 08:00:41 AM
Maybe he's not using beta patches
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 17, 2012, 08:24:51 AM
3.15 is not beta anymore. There might be some minor corrections, but they're likely to be save-compatible and the final release is probably to be expected very soon anyway. There's no sense to play 3.13 or lower.

Anyway, the 2.02 is deleted and I only have 2.04 files on hand. The only compatibility issue though is one additional troop in the troops.txt file and any issues with it would be minor - wrong races of campmasters, fugitives etc.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Banok on May 17, 2012, 09:24:37 AM
Is there a summary of what this mod specifically does anywhere?

all I know is it will likely make high armour even more powerful, and so I doubt I will want it considering how that will break the balance of good vs evil.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 17, 2012, 09:32:29 AM
Download the archive and read the two readme files it contains. This thread contains a detailed discussion of all the submod's aspects too, if you're up to browsing through it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Banok on May 17, 2012, 09:52:21 AM
Edit: found the mediafire link
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 17, 2012, 10:54:04 AM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/76j78q3bkgn4dcb/RCM_2.04_for_TLD.7z - version 2.04, compatible with TLD 3.15. No Warband animations for now, unfortunately, since that mod is currently not compatible with TLD 3.15.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Annuinir Thanguridhren on May 17, 2012, 12:19:28 PM
What is the issue with it do we know?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Banok on May 18, 2012, 04:38:51 AM
Okay I feel I have done a fair amount of testing of this mod, at first I played as mirkwood elf then, then as a gundabad goblin to compare. both 100% difficult, full damage and using mostly archery.

Some of the overall balancing of item stats is nice, orc armour no longer useless. But its as I feared this mod completely favours good side.  basically the mod makes archery incredibly powerful vs no/light armour but useless vs highest armour. As mirkwood the game was super super easy, bow dmg vs those orcs is like x3 vanilla. and then playing as orc I could kill elf archers with my bow but vs the heavy infantry especially dwarf infantry my bow did 0 damage even with head shots. I was managing to solo ~8 elf archers, doing ~40 damage while they do 140 damage since I got no good armour. but I go vs a few heavy dwarves, can't even kill 1 its completely impossible my damage is like 0, 14,0,0,0,23.

and no I cant increase my bow damage, im at 4 pd with 0 requirement bow, so AFAIK all bad guy arrows are completely useless vs heavy armour.
edit: seems some of the bad guy bows do have pd requirement, but I cant see it making much difference.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Merlkir on May 18, 2012, 06:42:17 AM
So dwarven armour is impenetrable by arrows? How shocking.

Sorry, that just sounds right to me. Does it blow for purely archer orcs? Yeah, I guess. Time to get some points in two handed and find an axe or something.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 18, 2012, 07:17:21 AM
@ Banok

RCM is more deadly then vanilla, don't expect to solo anything in it. Even if you're an elf lord in best elven armor, a stray arrow in the face, a hit with two-handed weapon or just some lucky hit will damage you nonetheless. Besides, you've been testing the elves, whose troops are generally the strongest, against the goblins, who are generally the weakest. Teleport to Isengard and try facing the Uruk-hai, you'll see what a strong evil faction looks like.

RCM is not balanced 100% because it's purpose is to recreate combat with realism/verisimilitude in mind. This puts certain limitations on the design. Still, I've balanced the troops as best as I could, so all the factions should be pleasurably playable. Obviously, with goblins vs. elves you should pick your fights carefully and be prepared to constantly take losses. Incidentally, the orcs are well-suited for this, being numerous and easy to train. I suggest getting the Trainer skill up to 3 at least, either for you character, or for the companion.

As for the dwarven armor, it's not entirely impenetrable, as the faces are mostly open and not all dwarves have armored boots. The high-tier orc archers can do damage through dwarven mail - without shields, dwarven infantry tends to go down under massed ranged fire. Luring them towards your melee troops and flanking with your archers is a rather reliable way to fight the dwarven infantry (dealing with their archers is the tricky part that requires careful maneuvering and some sacrifices).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: MariusThePaladin on May 18, 2012, 07:40:59 AM
As for the dwarven armor, it's not entirely impenetrable, as the faces are mostly open and not all dwarves have armored boots.

Do all helmets included masked/closed helm left the face open ?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Banok on May 18, 2012, 01:52:46 PM
I reckon soloing is way easier with RCM you just have to go heavy mele, but anyway each to his own, I'm using the item editor myself now.

I understand that the goal is for basis in realism not necessarily game balance but it feels the complete opposite of realism at least in this case; you've made arrows 100% fatal to people in low armour, and not pierce armour.

first of all people don't take an arrow and instantly die unless its someplace vital, arrow wounds are survivable at least short term, most deaths would be to bleeding/infection. arrows should not be way more raw damage then mele, its common sense; arrows do not even remove limbs.

And arrows definitely pierce mail, also common sense but i've even just been reading/watching loads of bow vs mail tests, and in them arrows go straight through even several layers. the force maybe be reduced but your mod is saying 0 damage. and no melkir not all dwarves wear mithril ;/
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Merlkir on May 18, 2012, 02:14:57 PM
*sigh*

No, you're wrong. You're free to read the tens of pages of discussion on the topic of arrows.
And no, tests of arrows vs. mail don't end up in mail and body penetration. At least not tests using properly made riveted mail.

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?41041-Armour-FAQs&s= (http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?41041-Armour-FAQs&s=)

And no, it doesn't even have to be mithril mail.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Banok on May 18, 2012, 04:14:06 PM
Interesting read from a historical perspective, but quotes from medievil ages are evidence?

he did mention a royal armoury test, but no link.. and ive seen a test with riveted mail. I'll believe that historic mail was better made but not that it was unpiercible until I see actual evidence.

anyway (with evidence or not) he concludes

"while not impervious, mail and its associated padding offered good protection against arrows."

I never objected to mail drastically reducing damage only nullifying it completely, hitting 0, 0, 0 ,0 = impervious armour & no trauma damage. thats my issue, aswell as too high damage vs low armour for reasons above. I might retry RCM for the general rebalances but just customise bow stats myself.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Banok on May 18, 2012, 04:37:36 PM
I found some actual evidence in some other contradicting tests I found, so yeah mail probably was alot better vs arrows than I thought. pretty dam interesting actually.

but my last point I will stick with. sounds like what I want is grothbag's version but the link is broken.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 18, 2012, 05:38:53 PM
For the record, the item stats (which form the core of RCM) were designed by Ron Losey, not me. I only rebalanced the troops, changed the prices and corrected some minor mistakes.

That said, the reasons for arrow damage being what it is in RCM are stated pretty clearly by Ron in the RCM conversion notes text file and in the first half of this thread. I suggest you read them before dismissing his representation.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Merlkir on May 18, 2012, 10:34:53 PM
You're hitting for 0 with shitty ORC arrows against excellent DWARVEN armour. It's not that strange. Again, dwarven armour doesn't need to be mithril to be the BEST in Middle Earth.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on May 20, 2012, 02:40:42 AM
Hello, I want to began an new campain with 3.15 and maybe RCM. I don't have the courage to read 40 pages.
Someone could explain me the changes in a few words or give me a link wich explain that?

It seems that RCM avantage the units with good equipement. That's correct? So the good side have avantage, no? Less units of evil side have good equipement in front of Gondor, elves or dwarfs units.
I always play with evil side, and it seems that only Harad have good protection and armours. I'm wrong?

Edit : And RCM is not save compatible, you must to begin a new campaign isn't it ?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 20, 2012, 03:29:19 AM
The troops file is not save compatible, unfortunately.

Can you wait for a day or two? I'm re-balancing the submod a bit - nerfing the Elves and Dwarves some more.

You're correct in assuming that the good side has some advantage because of its superior equipment. The best armored troops on the evil side are the Isengard Uruk-hai, followed closely by Mordor Uruks and Khand halberdiers. Also, I changed the equipment for Rhunian troops a bit, most of them have mail armor in RCM.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on May 20, 2012, 04:15:05 AM
Thank you for the answer. I'm still testing the 3.15 so it's not a probleme for my to begin a new campaign in a few days with your work. :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 20, 2012, 04:50:00 AM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/fa13bnt4m4gm72z/RCM_2.1_for_TLD.7z - a new, updated version of RCM for TLD.

Elves, Dwarves and Dunedain/Black Numenoreans nerfed somewhat for balancing purposes. They are now at the low point of the range of numbers that seem plausible for these types of troops. Nerfing them more would mean sacrificing lore and realistic interpretation.

Note that the game randomizes skills for the campaign at its start by +/-1 point, so fine-tuning is impossible  here. Actual in-game troop skills are a bit different in each new campaign.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on May 20, 2012, 07:25:09 AM
Ok, I try this new version with evil side.
I'm afraid of usual swordsmen of Gondor, and of course  swordsmen of the Tower or Knights. ::)

I think before try a campaign, I'll rise mi caracter at lvl 15 and use cheat codes to try several combinations of Mordor, Umbar, Harad and Khand units.

It's a good way to test RCM or I miss somehting?

Edit : oh, if I don't like RCM, how can i remove it? I must uninstall TLD and install it again?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 20, 2012, 08:28:36 AM
Just overwrite the RCM module.ini, item_kinds1.txt and troops.txt with the original 3.15 files. Note that this'll screw your campaign up - you'll have vanilla items, but RCM troop stats.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on May 20, 2012, 10:36:37 AM
Ok, I try this new version with evil side.
I'm afraid of usual swordsmen of Gondor, and of course  swordsmen of the Tower or Knights. ::)

I think before try a campaign, I'll rise mi caracter at lvl 15 and use cheat codes to try several combinations of Mordor, Umbar, Harad and Khand units.


It's not so difficult. I'll try now in a new game.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Anterias on May 21, 2012, 02:28:25 PM
Oh gawd. I started a lorien char, the war just began and I joined a lothlorien caravan in it's battle against Tuskim or whatever his name of Dol Guldur. Together we had 88 men vs his 103. I strongly, VERY strongly recommend that you do not nerf elves..

The archers were distracted by 10 wargs, the infantry which were quite a lot to be honest were massacered by the orcs... and the archery line bested by orc archers!? In total we lost 88 and they lost 44 gf...

I repeated the battle, this time they took 88 casaulties, lol but we still lost. Seriously elves shouldn't fall like flies.. especially to orc infantry >.>.

I think I've made my choice, going back to vanilla :D.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: MariusThePaladin on May 22, 2012, 01:11:24 AM
I agree. Nurfed dwarves is fine as they really are overpowered  :-\ But I think the Elves are just fine as the way they were.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 22, 2012, 02:19:44 AM
@ Anterias

Are you sure you installed the mod correctly? It's hard to imagine how you had to play to have elves massacred by orcs in an almost 1-on-1 fight. Did you start a new game? If not, then you were playing with RCM item stats and vanilla troop stats, not RCM proper.

If your troops were low-tier, a plausible explanation might be that you let all your troops get distracted by wargs, thus not using your archers against the orcish infantry, while your own infantry turned to face the wargs behind them, thus leaving their backs exposed to archer fire (or you've failed to use shieldwall in some other way). Though even with all this it sounds far-fetched - you'd have losses, but you should've still won the fight.

@ Marius

Just give it a try. Preferably, start with playing some evil force against elves or dwarves - Dol Guldur, Moria, Rhun, Gundabad. I think the nerf should make the game more playable for all sides, but many players complain, I'll revert the stats back to what they were before.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Sir Roland on May 22, 2012, 04:37:56 AM
I'm afraid what Anterias described is correct. The RCM has somehow turned the tables in terms of troop quality.
In my game I finally got around to trying Gondor and I took my 20 mid tier units (mostly infantry) to help 20 mid tier allies against a random Mordor raider party of 25. We were utterly crushed and only managed to kill around 10 orks, half of which were my kills.

Though the problem here might not even be the troop or item stats but rather the way some troops have difficulties hitting the custom sized units. My guess is that to counter this inefficiency there should be a slight bonus to the stats of normal sized troops to compensate. I understand that this is hard to actually measure and put into numbers but it might be worth taking into consideration if there is going to be another update to RCM.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 22, 2012, 04:48:42 AM
Have you started a new game after installing the mod? This is certainly NOT how things should be going and not how they went in my testing.

If you have started a new game and  installed the mod correctly, then there's a bug in the new version and you should use RCM 2.04 for now (it's still available for downloading).

EDIT:
Guys, I'm pretty certain that you both haven't started the new game (or haven't copied the RCM troops file to TLD folder), so you were playing with RCM items and physics, but with vanilla troops. Vanilla orcs currently have very high stats and in an RCM environment they're sure to be overpowered, which seems to be happening to you. Remember, that you should START A NEW GAME after installing RCM, it is not save compatible.

Sir Roland, with you it might be possible that you were using lightly armored troops (irrespective of their tier) against heavily armored orcs. Armor is extremely important in RCM combat, in line with its attempt to represent things realistically. If you were using properly armored troops (like Gondor infantrymen) and have started a new game, please say so - this means that there is a bug in the current version of RCM. In that case, use this version for now - http://www.mediafire.com/file/76j78q3bkgn4dcb/RCM_2.04_for_TLD.7z
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Sir Roland on May 22, 2012, 05:15:46 AM
I did start a new game as I always do when a new version comes out. And the troops were mostly infantrymen, a few watchmen and a few swordsmen.

I got knocked out pretty early and as I was lying there I saw about five of my men trying to hit the same orc but all of their hits simply glanced off while the orc was slaughtering them with one hit each.

Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 22, 2012, 05:27:32 AM
Could you try the same thing with version 2.04? Also, could you please list your and enemies troops more precisely? If those were five unarmored watchmen trying to hit an armored high-tier Uruk, or even a fell orc, then this doesn't look unreal.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Anterias on May 22, 2012, 09:16:08 AM
I assure you, it was a new game, with the RCM item and troop stats. I did not have low tier elves, the caravan had mostly vet infantry and archers, myself aswell. The infantry wasn't distracted by anything, they charged as a shield wall and were utterly slaughtered. The 30 or more archers just got headshotted a few seconds later, and I repeated this battle twice before uninstalling.

So pretty much Lorien Veteran Inf mixed with Lorien Infantry, Lorien vet archers, mixed with lorien archers. Versus like 10 wargs, top tier orc archers I presume I did not check as I no longer have that game. And you know how orc warrior tiers works.. they are like 3. They were probably top, but they still shouldn't slaughter elves like this..
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 22, 2012, 09:32:52 AM
Wow, that's exactly how it's not supposed to work. 2.1 is bugged then. If you want to try RCM, you should use 2.04.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/76j78q3bkgn4dcb/RCM_2.04_for_TLD.7z - this version should be used for now, as 2.1 appears to be bugged. I'm taking 2.1 down for now, so that people don't download it erroneously.

EDIT:
Oh, and one more question to Anterias and Sir Roland - you did use the RCM module.ini file too, didn't you? If you didn't, then that's probably the reason for those bugs.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on May 22, 2012, 09:41:03 AM
So I install 2.04 over 2.1 I install before? And I begin a new game? It's not very important, I don't have play a lot with this campaign.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 22, 2012, 09:46:23 AM
So I install 2.04 over 2.1 I install before? And I begin a new game? It's not very important, I don't have play a lot with this campaign.

Yes, just overwrite everything with 2.04 files.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 22, 2012, 12:39:32 PM
Some plans. Obviously, they're gonna be implemented after those 2.1 bug issues are dealt with.

First, concerning those power skills. I interpret them to be the physical capabilities, specifically relevant to hitting harder or drawing the bow stronger, that a warrior develops during the course of his career. Obviously, this is limited by that warrior's biological capabilities (muscles  don't grow forever). In terms of muscle strength, I deem the potential capabilities of an elf, a human and a dwarf to be roughly the same, so I'm scaling those three skills in the same fashion (the dwarven hardiness is already represented by high Ironflesh skill).

Second, to more accurately represent the fact that elven warriors can have literally millenia of military experience, I'm boosting the elven skills. The higher the troop-tier - the bigger the boost. That way they won't be nerfed as much as more correctly represented.

Third, for balancing purposes I'll nerf the elven bows and arrows a little bit, not changing Ron's numbers drastically, just making them less outstanding. Since this would contradict Ron's vision and some players seem to want stronger elves, I'll also include the unmodified items file in the download. The players will then be able to choose for themselves what would they prefer.

Any comments, suggestions etc. are appreciated.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Anterias on May 22, 2012, 01:09:37 PM
I'd like to add that, in temrs of power attack, I think elves and dwarves need to have a higher stat than humans. All in all elves and dwarves need to have lower hosts, humans larger hosts, but I don't know if it is possible to alter their strenght on the map, as in auto battles.. If it's possible then it would be great, for the official version not only RCM.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 22, 2012, 02:34:46 PM
I agree conceptually, but that would require re-balancing the on-map army compositions.

And I have to say that different interpretations of lore are equally plausible.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Foshizzle on May 22, 2012, 05:04:19 PM
I think Orcs, notably the Orc Trackers, need nerfed. Their armor and hitpoints are very high it seems, it takes squads of 4-5 Gondor soldiers usually surrounding them playing whack-a-mole against 1 Tracker until they die. I don't think archers should be this strong.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 22, 2012, 05:36:37 PM
Are you talking about RCM or vanilla? Light infantry dies easily in RCM.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Foshizzle on May 22, 2012, 06:17:32 PM
Are you talking about RCM or vanilla? Light infantry dies easily in RCM.

RCM. A Fell Orc Tracker did indeed die quickly to my men, but it seems like it took less of fighting and more encircling and whacking to kill him. At the time I was only using a spear with 30 thrust damage which since then I've improved, but a high-speed couched spear stab at the same Orc dealt literally 0-1 damage with a 77% speed bonus. His armor was way too high for an Orc archer, and I don't think it was an Uruk.

EDIT: Another battle with Orcs, and Orcs of Mordors' armor is far superior to Gondor soldiers'. I've stopped using RCM because I'm pretty sure it's causing the hugely unrealistic buffs to the Orcs and complete cripplings to Gondor and other Western factions.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 23, 2012, 03:03:30 AM
You've installed the bugged 2.1 version then. For some reason, the troop stats are totally messed up in it, I haven't yet looked into it properly.

Use the 2.04 version, it should work properly - http://www.mediafire.com/file/76j78q3bkgn4dcb/RCM_2.04_for_TLD.7z


That said, could you help me a little? Please, take a look at troop stats of the bugged RCM version you've just been using in the editor (specifically those troops whose combat performance looked weird to you) and tell me if they look weird - like orcs having higher stats then higher-tier Gondor troops etc. Then, do the same with the weapons these troops used. If you can make screens, that'd be awesome.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Foshizzle on May 23, 2012, 08:13:30 AM
The problem is I am using 2.04. I'll provide screenshots of the troop editor and stats when I can.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 23, 2012, 08:31:20 AM
Wow, this does get weird. I'm using 2.04 and 2.1 seems to work fine in my game too. Maybe it's the Windows issue, could you tell me which one are you using?

The problem is I am using 2.04. I'll provide screenshots of the troop editor and stats when I can.

Thank you in advance. Oh, and could you maybe throw in the screens for those same troops in the game itself too? Just talk to them in your party screen and ask them to "tell you about them" or somesuch.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 23, 2012, 11:40:18 AM
Ok guys, here's version 2.11:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/lds35fs6ub3lvtm/RCM_2.11_for_TLD.7z

I've tested it with a company (~20) of mid-to-high tier elven infantry and they were predictably deadly, wiping out companies of average orcs two times their size without taking a single loss. This is how RCM is supposed to work and if you're getting different results then something is wrong.

I suggest you try it the same way I did - it takes 5 minutes to create such a company with cheats, just jump through all of the elven fortresses and hire all the troops there. Upgrade in such a way that your lowest troop tier is no less then 3. If you get the same combat results as I did, you're ok. If not, please report it, also stating your Windows platform. If possible, please keep the savegame for this test (if things go wrong - if all's right just enjoy the game).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Anterias on May 23, 2012, 01:18:05 PM
I really didn't test much, but I ported a bit with a galadhrim swordsman and a royal archer to see how well they do outnumbered, they do fine. But anyways dunnish outcasts with spears hold the spear as a two handed sword :P.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 23, 2012, 01:23:49 PM
That's cause they're fodder for you to train on:) But the elves work fine? That's good to hear. If you have more time, maybe you'll check them against some orcs (preferably, armored ones)? Most complaints were about OP orcs.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Foshizzle on May 24, 2012, 12:59:59 AM
As I thought, everything seems much more normal without RCM. In fact, I've noticed improvements from both friendly and enemy AI. For example, spears do damage now, even at point-blank, so the majority of Gondor's army is no longer useless in close combat. Uruks are no longer taking down dozens of Gondorian soldiers either. I think the problem is RCM does indeed make things realistic, but sacrifices canon for it, giving the Orcs for example extremely heavy armor, making them unbeatable by most Gondorian soldiers, which I think is the problem.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 24, 2012, 02:42:02 AM
The problem with your RCM game, as I've already said a couple of times, was that it was bugged. Gondorian soldiers are obviously much stronger then orcs in RCM, Uruks are never capable of taking down dozens of Gondorians either etc. All those were bugs, not intended features.

In terms of how factions are balanced in tactical combat RCM isn't that much different from vanilla. The experience is different though.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Foshizzle on May 24, 2012, 10:24:37 AM
The problem with your RCM game, as I've already said a couple of times, was that it was bugged. Gondorian soldiers are obviously much stronger then orcs in RCM, Uruks are never capable of taking down dozens of Gondorians either etc. All those were bugs, not intended features.

In terms of how factions are balanced in tactical combat RCM isn't that much different from vanilla. The experience is different though.

I'll continue my current campaign then test afterwards if RCM makes any difference when playing as Mordor.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Xomy on May 25, 2012, 03:37:12 PM
Well, i've got a problem downloading.

When I click your link, Wupload says me "Note:

Wupload does not allow files to be shared. We are a STORAGE ONLY product so you can only download your own files.

If you have uploaded this file yourself, login first in order to download it.
"

and then asks me a login and a password.

What am I supposed to do ?

Thanks for answer.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 25, 2012, 04:23:35 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/lds35fs6ub3lvtm/RCM_2.11_for_TLD.7z - use this link.

Wupload link is not current.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 27, 2012, 02:42:28 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/m907cencq53m04n/RCM_2.12_for_TLD.7z - the latest version of RCM. Nerfs trolls a bit, everything else is the same as in 2.11.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on May 30, 2012, 12:20:14 PM
I need an advice RK.

I lose mi new campaing with RCM (2.04) : 4 save corrupted. :o

I don't want really to begin a new game (my 12th with Mordor). I have an old save, before I try RCM.
If I well understand, in this save, I have RCM items but vanilla troops balancing. It's very different than RCM balancing ?

I try with Rohan : it seems playable and I like the changes with RCM. Now I will attack elves of Lotholorien.

Do you think it's make no sens to continue the test of RCM with this save?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 30, 2012, 01:31:27 PM
I doubt RCM items will work well with vanilla troops - the factions will probably be totally unbalanced. I'd advise not to do it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on May 31, 2012, 04:24:57 AM
OK, let's go for the 12th campaign with Mordor and RCM 2.12.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Jambat on June 01, 2012, 10:51:26 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/su5rut1w0uabdvy/RCM_beta_temp.7z - temporary version, compatible with the beta patch.

Please excuse a possibly stupid question, but is version 2.12 compatible with the Beta patch as well? I downloaded 2.12 and the beta patch and just want to make sure I'm not about to fubar the campaign.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 02, 2012, 02:05:58 AM
Yeah. Though I heartily recommend you use 3.15 - https://rapidshare.com/files/2597074780/TLD_patch_3.1_to_3.15.7z - and not the beta patch. It has some features (unrelated to RCM) that were not available in beta patch.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Jambat on June 02, 2012, 03:33:15 AM
Yeah. Though I heartily recommend you use 3.15 - https://rapidshare.com/files/2597074780/TLD_patch_3.1_to_3.15.7z - and not the beta patch. It has some features (unrelated to RCM) that were not available in beta patch.

Whoops, guess I was using the legit patch and thinking it was the beta version. Went to download and it said I already had the file in my download folder.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on June 02, 2012, 07:05:33 AM
Yeah. Though I heartily recommend you use 3.15 - https://rapidshare.com/files/2597074780/TLD_patch_3.1_to_3.15.7z - and not the beta patch. It has some features (unrelated to RCM) that were not available in beta patch.

Yes, What do you call "Beta patch"? The 3.14?

The 3.15 still a Beta patch, no?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 02, 2012, 07:19:40 AM
AFAIK, 3.15 is final.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Merlkir on June 02, 2012, 12:17:32 PM
AFAIK, 3.15 is final.

I could be wrong and MV will correct me, but it's still posted in the beta thread, therefore it's a beta patch.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Jambat on June 02, 2012, 01:04:57 PM
OK two things after my amazing ten levels trying out RCM:

*Horses, weeeeee! Ok, that's a little silly, but good God can they book now! I started a Rohan game, bought a good Courser (For like 280 resources!), and I've been absolutely terrible fighting on it because my timing is so thrown off by the fact the thing has rocket jets now. It has however been really fun screwing with archers, 'I can outrun your pitiful arrows, mortal!'

Ok, editing the second part after testing the Uruk-Hai vs Gondor and the Elves at the same level. The Elves work perfect - they massacre the Uruk-Hai from range, but if any make it to melee it becomes a rush to dispatch them before they slaughter large numbers of elves. Seems how it should be - Charge my gunline, die in droves. Get to hit me, in trouble. Gondor seemed to fair better with it's heavier knights and the infantry with larger shields, swords, and better mail. The mid-tier troops, and some of the lighter specialty troops, just were chewed up but I suppose if you have the ability to create Swan Knights and Tower Guard that's acceptable losses. If anyone is reading this wall of text and planning on using a lot of Gondor Knights, make sure to up your prisoner skill and go fight some of the evil human factions - those guys just love to repeatedly run over a dozen enemies, and with several of them they are knock-out machines.

Rohan however gets destroyed by the Uruk-Hai of Isengard, and the Orcs of Mordor to a slightly lesser extent. It seems that they have several huge problems: One, the horses are for the most part unarmored and seem to have low hp. I can't even count the times I've seen a Rider attempt a ride-by-attack, have his horse taken out from under him in one swing, and then promptly killed a hit or two later by the UH. This seems to become even worse if the Cav decides to slow to a trot or full stop and just try to exchange swings with a lone, or pair of enemies. Horse dies in a hit or two, rider follows quickly. Two, Rohan for the most part has shorter reach weapons (They haven't been using spears much unless attempting ride-by's) and lighter armor than the armies they are sandwiched in between. So, they go to close the gap and get an axe swing in, and are split apart by a preemptive strike. I've seen Tier 3 and Tier 4 Rohan Infantry be just massacred by things I've been owning with lower tier ranged and infantry from other factions. Hell, wearing the Rohan Armor (Just the plain version, armor 55 I do believe.) I took an Orc arrow to the chest as we rode in that took me from 100% hp to 0% in one shot. And that's the better armor, so I can see how the grunts are getting split apart.

Oh, and Noldorian Archers eat Wargs for breakfast. I'm going to have to figure out how to be afford to pay for half-a-dozen (or more!) of these glorious engines of pointy-eared destruction. So nice after 'Vanilla' TLD spending 5-10 minutes after fights trying to finish off the mounts to have troops that are just Warg Hunter-Killers.

So: Gondor, like the mod. Elves, like the mod. Rohan, not liking the mod.  :lol:
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 02, 2012, 02:54:37 PM
Well, there were some complaints about bugs that made orcs OP in the previous version. To make sure yours is working correctly, you can do this:

1. Start a new game as an elf, cheat yourself to the 8-th level.
2. Cheat some money, buy yourself the best equipment.
3. Jump around all the elven fortresses with Ctrl+click, buy all the soldiers there (don't bother with Dunedain and Lothlorien scouts - you'll only need elven infantry).
4. Using Ctrl+X cheat get those troops to 4-6 tier. Only upgrade to melee infantry.
5. Using Ctrl+T find some orc parties on the map (not mountain orcs and other rabble and, preferably, not Uruk-hai).
6. Jump to them and engage them.
7. With about 1:2 or less ratio in their favor your troops should slaughter them with minimum casualties. If this happens, your version of RCM works correctly. If not - please report this and I'll look into it.

2.12 works perfectly on my system, but who knows what glitches can happen on other systems. Anyway, the test described above takes only 5 minutes, so I suggest you try it just in case.

I don't know what tactics you use, but, generally, charging against heavy infantry in tight formation with your cavalry is a recipe for disaster in RCM. This especially concerns the Uruk-hai, as they're the strongest infantry on the evil side. When playing Rohan, I always weaken Isengard troops with my mounted archers and make sure their formation is broken, only then charge. I usually have minimum losses that way.

With Mordor it's something like that too, though a higher tier Rohirrim force shouldn't have problems breaking them right away, unless they field many Uruks and Fell Orcs.

Orc arrows have about the same stats as the regular arrows. Can't say anything about that one-shot you've suffered without more details.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Jambat on June 02, 2012, 03:08:55 PM
I just edited the post after some testing of other races, so check that out Rene then tell me what you think.

Edit: Oh, trust me, I'm not a 'Lol, zerg rush up the middle' with my cav. I usually try to get some Gondorian archers (I love those Ninja Rangers) to help soften up the enemy with my ranged cav. I try to lure away or personally break apart tightly packed formations (no way you charge into that), and when I do hit them I try to do it from multiple angles at the weakest apparent point: Infantry to the front, Cav to the side and/or rear.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 02, 2012, 03:46:24 PM
Well, I didn't have any problems with Rohan against orcs or Uruk-hai. And I was playing them in the previous version - I've nerfed Uruk-hai since then, so it should be even easier.

Can you do that test exactly in the way I described? No archers, no non-elven troops - just pit some elven infantry against the orcs. That way I'll know if RCM is functioning correctly on your system or not.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on June 02, 2012, 04:28:51 PM
I have the same feelling after various tests RK. Cavalry lose horses more often than Vanilla (particularly no protected horses). Even Black Numéroneans horsemasters lose their mount : I never see that in Vanilla. :o

For me, it's not a problem. Cavalry is too much powerfull in TLD, just like M&B. With RCM you must be more careful, more tactician. It's one thing i like in RCM. It's fine, it's not a problem. :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 02, 2012, 04:55:10 PM
Oh, I know that. It's one of those things I like about RCM, actually. But that doesn't make cavalry forces weak, you just have to use them smarter.

I just want to make sure RCM is working properly on Jambat's system. Hopefully it does. Then, I guess, I'll have to write some kind of explanation of what RCM is and how to play it, so that people don't take its differences with vanilla for imbalances or something and don't form opinions on first impression, which can often be erroneous. I've tested Rohan extensively enough to know it to be one of the strongest factions in RCM for instance. So I presume there's either something wrong with Jambat's version or he hasn't got the hang of Rohan yet.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Jambat on June 02, 2012, 05:51:03 PM
Oh, I know that. It's one of those things I like about RCM, actually. But that doesn't make cavalry forces weak, you just have to use them smarter.

I just want to make sure RCM is working properly on Jambat's system. Hopefully it does. Then, I guess, I'll have to write some kind of explanation of what RCM is and how to play it, so that people don't take its differences with vanilla for imbalances or something and don't form opinions on first impression, which can often be erroneous. I've tested Rohan extensively enough to know it to be one of the strongest factions in RCM for instance. So I presume there's either something wrong with Jambat's version or he hasn't got the hang of Rohan yet.

Oh, I don't even need to cheat to do that. I have an Elven campaign going right now and they are working just fine, I am however using the alternate file provided with the download for them. I had Loth infantry of good to great quality and they were killers, but I turned them in to readjust my force for my new-found love of Elvish Knights.

I'm going to restart Rohan and make it a focus to try to go into it a bit tougher and better prepared than I did last time (which I said was a possibility for my arse-whooping; Was hard to keep a strong force going with how easily they dropped), and we'll see how it goes.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 03, 2012, 02:34:17 AM
Well, that's good, it's working as intended then. The alternate file only nerfs their bows and arrows a little bit. It doesn't affect the infantry and the nerf isn't that big anyway.

The Elven cavalry is very good and versatile, I usually end up switching to it too as the troops level up.

As for the Rohirrim cavalry - barding (horse armor) is very important here. Only those troops that have it can be considered proper hard-hitting heavy cavalry. This is true of vanilla TLD too, BTW, though to a lesser extent. So yeah, trying to charge an Isengard phalanx with those Riders of Rohan is a really bad idea. Better to use your skirmishers against them (just don't charge them, keep them formed up and nearby and let them shoot from formation). But when you have a sizeable force of Elite Riders or somesuch, they'll usually be charging in front and attracting the enemy attention to themselves, making your non-barded troops (who'll be charging with them) more efficient and less prone to losses.

The general idea is to micromanage your cavalry until the time for a final charge to defeat the enemy comes. Pepper the main enemy formation with arrows, move away when they try to close in. Drive your formation through the ranks of their archers a couple of times - if the enemy infantry is far away, even charge those archers, then in 10-15 seconds form up again (so that your riders don't start charging the infantry one by one). It takes some getting used too, but it's a fun way to play for anybody who enjoys tactical challenge.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 07, 2012, 03:14:19 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/2anht3h8d7x6zjy/RCM_2.13_for_TLD.7z - hopefully, the final version of RCM. Trolls nerfed significantly and don't seem to be OP anymore. In my tests, they looked well-balanced. Nothing else is changed, so if you don't use trolls in your games you don't need this update.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Jambat on June 07, 2012, 04:54:47 PM
It takes some getting used too, but it's a fun way to play for anybody who enjoys tactical challenge.

That's basically how you run a light/medium cav army in any of the mods - taking on the Snake Cults w/Anacondas in Pendor in the first month comes to mind. Trying to trade punches just loses you the game. I'd never try to zerg a heavy infantry formation that's stuck in head on, and I don't let cav run around willy-nilly to get picked off because the AI (M&B, no fault of the mod team) is pretty stupid.

I take it that if I remove this, the saves have to be tossed? I believe I read something about the troops file being all screwy after removing RCM.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 07, 2012, 06:02:56 PM
M&B saves troop stats in the savegame files. If you swap RCM for native, you'll get native item stats, but the troop stats will be from RCM.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on June 09, 2012, 03:38:40 AM
It still plays just fine. Had a go again today and no issues noted.  :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 09, 2012, 04:02:02 AM
Capital! Thanks for taking time to mention it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 09, 2012, 04:35:14 AM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/185al6un422x1wq/party_templates.txt - this is an optional party composition modification catered to RCM. It's primary feature is that it adds Trolls and Olog Hai to Mordor, Dol Guldur, Moria and Gundabad lord parties. Expect to see enough of them and for the tactical balance to be altered (there certainly will be less bias towards good factions). The file also rebalances dwarven parties towards being somewhat more melee-oriented.

The modification is save-compatible.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Jambat on June 09, 2012, 04:12:24 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/185al6un422x1wq/party_templates.txt - this is an optional party composition modification catered to RCM. It's primary feature is that it adds Trolls and Olog Hai to Mordor, Dol Guldur, Moria and Gundabad lord parties. Expect to see enough of them and for the tactical balance to be altered (there certainly will be less bias towards good factions). The file also rebalances dwarven parties towards being somewhat more melee-oriented.

The modification is save-compatible.

That does sound really interesting, and sounds like it will make battles tougher. About how many can you expect to see in the lord parties? 1-2? More?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 09, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
2-3 for Moria lords, 5-6 for their marshal. 1-2 for other lords, around 2-4 for marshals. In larger battles with several lords you might see a dozen trolls participate, for example.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Jambat on June 09, 2012, 06:18:54 PM
2-3 for Moria lords, 5-6 for their marshal. 1-2 for other lords, around 2-4 for marshals. In larger battles with several lords you might see a dozen trolls participate, for example.

A dozen trolls, hahah. Oh lord, I have to try that. I ended up with a quest before that had 3 or 4 of the things and it was a nightmare, every single horse I had was like 'F THIS'. I have to try this, it sounds both glorious and horrific at the same time (In a good way).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: MrPixel on June 09, 2012, 06:34:53 PM
2-3 for Moria lords, 5-6 for their marshal. 1-2 for other lords, around 2-4 for marshals. In larger battles with several lords you might see a dozen trolls participate, for example.

Oh my god.. that sounds so awesome. I am incredibly tempted to start a new game (my previous Mordor save decided it would no longer load..) but I'm in the middle of exams.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 10, 2012, 03:37:42 AM
They're nerfed right now in RCM. So I might actually INCREASE their quantity later on:) I'll be waiting for your feedback on this one. And the changes will be save-compatible, so you'll be able to incorporate them in your games right away without losing your progress.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Minas_Ithil on June 11, 2012, 12:08:21 PM
Mirkwood Elven lords are not carrying archers. If they have 100 men only 10 of them are archers. That's a little bit weird
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 11, 2012, 12:10:30 PM
Native issue, I didn't change them.

But I'll look into doing that now, thanks for mentioning it:)

EDIT: Are you sure it wasn't just coincidence? Their reinforcements are skewed towards archers rather heavily.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Anterias on June 11, 2012, 02:33:53 PM
Yeah pretty sure it's just you man, of all the games I've played mirkwood has tons of archers, and infantry.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 13, 2012, 03:41:02 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/nrz05f0lpw3nc0c/RCM_2.14_for_TLD.7z - new version of RCM, drops 50 hp off Moria troll, issues barded horses to Gondor knights and veteran knights, issues hauberks to veteran squires of Dol Amroth. Includes the optional party templates file, which is save-compatible.

The optional party templates file adds trolls and Olog Hai to Moria, Mordor, Dol Guldur and Gundabad lords' parties. Expect to see up to a dozen in larger battles. It also rebalances the dwarves heavily towards melee. Expect to see no more then 10-15% of ranged troops compromising the larger hosts.

EDIT: The download link has been updated from 2.13 to 2.14.

EDIT2: It seems that the probabilities of troops being present depend on where the relevant row is situated in the party templates file. Changed the dwarven party compositions to reflect that appropriately. They should be archer-low as intended now. I've re-uploaded the submod archive and here's the party templates file separately too - http://www.mediafire.com/file/7jfc5s2t977f4e7/party_templates.txt
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Minas_Ithil on June 17, 2012, 06:08:01 PM
Yeah pretty sure it's just you man, of all the games I've played mirkwood has tons of archers, and infantry.
Yes I started a new game with elves to test it but in my current game infantary owns..
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Maur on June 18, 2012, 04:43:54 PM
Yet it seems to me that Elves shouldn't be all that secure in being able to withstand Sauron. Why would the war in the North even be a problem if they can easily take anything Sauron can throw at them? There should be a certain tension within the limits of this game engine so it isn't a complete cakewalk for an Elven player.

Perhaps this issue can be handled by giving an orc player a huge bonus to leadership, so you're actually able to field 200 orcs against an elven patrol? As I said, logistics is the biggest problem for Moria. If I can get 200 or 300 orcs, pay them and feed them then I won't have a problem with elves being a lot stronger than me.
The Elves were basically powerless because there were very few of them left in the ME, and their losses were basically irreplaceable - they didn' breed fast in first place, and by 3rd age, their numbers are dwindling even at peace. Given that Orcs breed superhumanly fast, add trolls, humans and odd Nazgul in the mix, and it becomes clear that the elves stand no chance. So lorewise the number of elves should be cut by an order of magnitude and orc numbers raised similarily. Well, exagerrating a bit here, but it's not doable from game perspective.

(oh, and sorry, i know it's a little bit of necro, but...)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Anterias on June 19, 2012, 12:37:04 AM
Elves weren't THAT few, if they managed to even wage a war in the north and not just die. :P
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Maur on June 19, 2012, 07:14:48 AM
Well, only wars against Isengard and Rhun were won by military strenght. (and even then, the former only somewhat) Mordor folded because Sauron was destroyed, IIRC, this also includes Dol Guldur. That said, i was exagerrating. A little bit ;)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: vota dc on June 19, 2012, 10:56:34 AM
In the war against Rhun there wasn't mass suicide because Sauron fall, but still lack of morale was decisive. Without it Rhun would won.
In the war against Isengard also morale was important to lose less soldier: Gandalf used special effects to persuade Dunlendings to give up.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 19, 2012, 12:01:12 PM
The Lord of the Rings is rather explicitly built around the fact that the good side could not hope to win by force of arms, like it did at the end of First and Second Ages. The elven population has seen a constant drain to Valinor, the majority Dunedain have been wiped out by the plague and Kin-strife and lesser men of the West have seen their share of losses too, as did the dwarves. Even re-establishing Dale and Erebor was a big boost to the good side (masterminded by Gandalf) - without them Rhun would be attacking Thranduil's elves right away - and we're not talking about any kind of huge demographic boost.

But the game can't capture it all. I thinks the devs have made quite a reasonable representation, the artwork certainly provides immersion.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 19, 2012, 02:14:49 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/qmhdb19sanbbn2d/RCM_2.15_for_TLD.7z - an updated version of RCM for TLD. Changed Gondor knights' horses back to non-barded. Issued better armor to Pelargir infantry. Issued barded horses to Variag heavy horsemen. Rohirrim veteran riders/skirmishers and lancers now only ride hunters, not coursers.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Maur on June 19, 2012, 04:18:05 PM
The Lord of the Rings is rather explicitly built around the fact that the good side could not hope to win by force of arms, like it did at the end of First and Second Ages. The elven population has seen a constant drain to Valinor, the majority Dunedain have been wiped out by the plague and Kin-strife and lesser men of the West have seen their share of losses too, as did the dwarves. Even re-establishing Dale and Erebor was a big boost to the good side (masterminded by Gandalf) - without them Rhun would be attacking Thranduil's elves right away - and we're not talking about any kind of huge demographic boost.

But the game can't capture it all. I thinks the devs have made quite a reasonable representation, the artwork certainly provides immersion.
Yeah, i complely agree. About both paragraphs -  the immersion is simply complete.

On a side note, i am insterested in sort of sightseeing game - one where i don't really want a war and one where i don't want balance. Do you have any advice if this is achieveable by mixing RCM releases (so i have pre-nerf elves and dwarves and trolls existing, etc - oh and that also includes the issue i asked about in FAQ thread, specifically, if i can change the 8th level start of the war trigger)


Hmm, on a side note, i don't agree completely. The first age was not won by force of arms either - it took a Valar intervention to defeat Morgoth, and the people of Beleriand experienced a long string of defeats up to that event. But 2nd age, yeah.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 19, 2012, 04:46:44 PM
Just drop the xp acquisition rate to zero in module.ini, I suppose.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Maur on June 19, 2012, 05:07:53 PM
Yes, but i'd prefer to change the war trigger value - otherwise i'd have to do some importing/exporting of my character, and i'd prefer o avoid that. I didn't mean sightseeing literally, more like a sandbox game where there is no destruction of factions. Yes, i know it's rather contrary to what the patches have done and what most folks want. :)

EDIT/ Scratch that. I migh as well go into modding and create a game for myself, which would be totally unbalanced (for example, with badly outnumbered Gondor when i'm playing Gondor character), but which would suit a particular game needs of mine. Since you mod this a lot, i've got a question - do you do it with some tools or by textfile editing? And, in either case, could you point me to either these tools or modding guide?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 20, 2012, 12:31:49 AM
http://mbx.streetofeyes.com/index.php/topic,2740.30.html - you might look here for a couple of tweaks. Otherwise, I can't really help you as I only mod item and troop stats, not the kinds of things you seem to want to change.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Maur on June 20, 2012, 05:11:05 AM
Thanks, this will be useful.

Don't you change party composition, too, though? I really want to tweak some numbers there.

On a side note, what is the option "defender only" for in siege requirements?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 20, 2012, 10:50:00 AM
Don't you change party composition, too, though? I really want to tweak some numbers there.

http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=709 - you can use this tool for that.

Dunno about the defender only siege requirement.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Annuinir Thanguridhren on June 20, 2012, 03:45:59 PM
If you're talking about in the tld options in the action menu then it makes it to where only the defenders faction strength matters. otherwise the attackers has to be high enough and the defenders low enough but with defender only even the beornings could attack anyone with a low enough faction strength.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Maur on June 20, 2012, 04:03:03 PM
Don't you change party composition, too, though? I really want to tweak some numbers there.

http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=709 - you can use this tool for that.

Dunno about the defender only siege requirement.
Thanks. Should have thought of browsing modding subforum myself... Anyway, exactly what i needed. Now, i'm doing my little personal mod, buffing up elves and dwarves up to eleven (and radically flattening their tier level progression) and slashing the size of their parties accordingly. I wonder how will that play out. Probably will fail miserably. On a side note, if i can ask for another thing, do you use similar program for modding items? I need to raise powerdraw req. for elvish bows.

Oh, and on a side note, i vaguely remember you writing something about raising number of arrows per quivers in RCM. I'm currently playing with 90 (tripled), so if you're interested, i'll share my impressions.

And yes, Annuinir, that what i was asking abou, thanks.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Anahath on June 24, 2012, 01:03:44 PM
I don't understand what RCM is, how does it change the game? why is so popular? :-\
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Minas_Ithil on June 29, 2012, 08:06:23 AM
Why Isengard Long Bows have lower damage than short Orc Bows? Why gigantic Isengard Halberds have lower damage than others ? Come on man this is realistic combat model :P
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on June 29, 2012, 05:06:55 PM
Because all the damage is shifted to arrows. What you see on the bows is irrelevant.

Questions about Isengard halberds or somesuch should be addressed to Ron, as he designed them that way. Trust me, though, when I say that he probably had good reasons for it.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Minas_Ithil on July 02, 2012, 04:08:43 PM
But dude, with arrows it's getting even worse. I just checked in the game and got these :

Isengard Arrows giving +33 bonus damage
Orc Barbed Arrows giving +34 bonus damage

Orc Bow has 11c damage
Isengard Large Bow has 9c damage

This thing needs a fix IMO

And here is another feedback : Uruk Guard Armor is heavier than Uruk-hai Heavy Armor but Uruk Guard Armor is giving less bonuses compared to Uruk-Hai one. It seems they are in same material. I'm reporting this because I see that Uruk Mask Helm is heavier than Uruk-hai Captain Helm and it's giving more armor points, I found this quite logical but it's not same on armors, that's confusing. Since Uruk Guard Armor is heavier , it must be the stronger one. Harder steel = better defence...
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on July 03, 2012, 01:46:09 AM
Ron has probably interpreted the orc one as a composite bow, while the Isengard one - as a crude longbow. The orc bow has higher PD value and higher missile speed, so I doubt it's a mistake. Bear in mind that the weapon stats are derived from its looks, which can be subject to interpretation. Ron's interpretation of these bows probably just differs from yours. If this is so immersion-breaking for you - just swap their stats in your file.

Actually a well-designed armor can easily be both less cumbersome and have better protective qualities then the badly-designed one. Remember that in terms of game mechanics weight represents encumbrance, rather then weight per se.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on July 03, 2012, 09:01:45 AM
Hello RK,

I'm close to finish mi Mordor campaign and now I want to began a new one with Gondor and the last version of RCM (the 2.15?)

I suppose you try the balancing. Does the trolls file give an advantage to evil side? If it is, it's not a problem : I'm not against if I play Gondor.

Give barded horses to heavy horseman of Khand it's a good idea : it was very difficult to rise them to Kataphract, the only barded cavalry they have (with veteran skirmisher). It's a pity because they are very weak as a cavalry faction ( in mi campaign I would prefere harad cavalry).
Why do you choose to come back about barded horses for Knights of Gondor ? Without barded horses they are  weak, no?

Anyway, I like RCM. The first reason is the cavalry isn't so powerfull like vanilla : it's more interesting.
Thank you for your work.  :green:

Edit : i understand about Knights, they are veteran knights... . I print the troop tree of Gondor.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on July 03, 2012, 02:26:11 PM
Yeah, the 5-6 tiers have barded horses.

My latest campaign is Gondor actually. Plays very well. Trolls actually balance things out somewhat, so good troops and Mordor/goblins tend to be more equal on the battlefield.

Glad you like RCM!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Minas_Ithil on July 04, 2012, 05:50:49 AM
Ron has probably interpreted the orc one as a composite bow, while the Isengard one - as a crude longbow. The orc bow has higher PD value and higher missile speed, so I doubt it's a mistake. Bear in mind that the weapon stats are derived from its looks, which can be subject to interpretation. Ron's interpretation of these bows probably just differs from yours. If this is so immersion-breaking for you - just swap their stats in your file.

Actually a well-designed armor can easily be both less cumbersome and have better protective qualities then the badly-designed one. Remember that in terms of game mechanics weight represents encumbrance, rather then weight per se.
But dude even lorewise orcs can not wield a composite bow and yet they hold it like a crossbow. So they must have poor accuracy. Here is another theory : "Ron probably mixed things up and gave wrong points to the Isengard & Orc bows by mistake." 

Note : I swapped them in my own game as you suggested.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Triglav on July 04, 2012, 12:57:11 PM
and yet they hold it like a crossbow. So they must have poor accuracy.

They don't hold it like a crossbow, they hold it gangsta style (http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/thug_sideways_pistol_aim.jpg). That was another mtarini's little addition to immersion lol.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on July 04, 2012, 01:44:34 PM
But dude even lorewise orcs can not wield a composite bow and yet they hold it like a crossbow.

Really? Care to prove it with more or less clear quotes from Tolkien?

BTW, steppe mounted archers (the main users of the said composite bows) are known to have been painted wielding them like that. Re-enactors do this too sometimes.

Again, I really doubt this is not intentional on Ron's part. Besides, the in-game effect of swapping those two items would be negligible - you'll only know about it if you look at the numbers.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Minas_Ithil on July 04, 2012, 03:26:48 PM
But dude even lorewise orcs can not wield a composite bow and yet they hold it like a crossbow.
BTW, steppe mounted archers (the main users of the said composite bows) are known to have been painted wielding them like that. Re-enactors do this too sometimes.

But dude Mounted Archers supposed to use them in that way . Gangsta-Style shooting is giving them some advantages (Speed Shots,maintaining control of the mount etc...) while going straight. Horse archers were mastered at this, shooting with less aim. Holding the rope of horse and bow in one hand, It's just cool and usefull and you can't see any foot archer doing this. It reduces accuracy. Because the orcs are brainless , they don't care to aim much and prefer to shoot in random ways (Allright that was my opinion) . Long story short Isen Bows should pwn those maggoty orc bows, Saruman must have equipped his uruks better than their mordor parts. But what ever I think I spoke too much about this. So I will start a new discussion. Are Corsair Bows same as the steelbows that were mentioned in books? If so, they need to be stronger (?) .
They're not the bows of Númenor. But the Corsairs do believe themselves to be descendants of that blessed island, that's why they use steel bows.


Btw I really love RCM and TDL this is why I'm asking so many questions.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on July 05, 2012, 02:37:52 AM
To finish with the bow discussion.

The stronger bows actually don't give advantage to any user per se. A well-made longbow and composite bow are powerful weapons, but only if the user is strong enough to actually pull the bow string close to the maximum potential of the bow. Otherwise the archer can use a lighter bow with the same efficiency (obviously, this is a somewhat primitive way to depict  the issue, but it'll do for the purposes of game modeling). Thus, as long as the bow permits, it's the archer's strength that matters, not the characteristics of the bow.

This is depicted correctly in TLD in terms of Power Draw skill being more important then the bow stats themselves. And that's why Uruk-hai archers (which have higher tier and higher PD) are better then other orcish archers, even if their bows are somewhat worse. The same goes for the Corsairs. And even the elves derive much of their ranged advantage from PD skill.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on July 06, 2012, 08:10:45 AM
You ask me how I feel the elves after my Mordor campaign. But I'm not the best tester for that because I played this campaign in 27% difficulty  : 1/4 damage for my, 1/2 for my troops (I know, I'm a pussy  :D). In my new campaign with Mordor I rise difficulty to 60% (1/2 for me, normal for troops) and i feel the difference, even with Gondor troops. In a third campaign, I think play an Uruk and rise to 100% : i will tell you about elves. :)

The only think I can say :
- Power of cavalry decrease with RCM, even with this damages : it's the most obvious. Heavy infantry is the queen of battle. I was a little disappointed by archery so I don't use very much. But, I've just read your last message : I understand better and I will try.
- Elves elite infantry is very powerfull, even in this difficulty. But, when I go to north, in most battles we are outnumbered so it's not really a problem.
- The only problem was the attack of Calas Galadhon which have an important garrison. But my character was at level 30+, 2H nazgul sword, (the dark power to reduce damages to 1/4).... So he could help to kill elite infantry, and after archers are  less strongs.

On the other hand, Minas Thirith was too difficult to attack : elite troops, important garrison + Denethor ost, archers in the Tower... After 3-4 tempt, I give up and decrease the strength to 0 to defeat Gondor.

I think I will do some campaigns with different characters. I will rise the difficulty. When I will around 100% i will post more thinks about my RCM feeling. :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on July 23, 2012, 06:47:49 AM
Hello,

I try RCM with Gondor (1/2 for me, normal for my troops). It seems that it's give a strong advantage to good guys. The Dol Amroth knights paticulary are very strong.

If you see my post in 3.15 thread, I will try a new campain with 3.13 (Gondor). I'll think to try without RCM, just to try (I keep my 3.15 installation with RCM).
If it's possible I would put your Troll and Dwarfs modification. If I copy the 2.15 RCM's party_template file in TLD 3.13, It will work? I will have more Trolls and more Dwarfs footwarriors in partys ?

Thanks, if you can help me. It's just to try. :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on July 24, 2012, 05:55:49 AM
Yeah, it should work. BTW, how do the new melee-oriented Dwarven armies feel?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Ji Indur on July 24, 2012, 07:40:44 AM
I try since yesterday and it works very well.

I like new melee-oriented Dwarven armies. In vanilla is not so immersive too much archers in Dwarven  armies. :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: thelastpatriot on August 07, 2012, 08:19:01 PM
IS there a rcm for 3.15 (also the 3.1 download dosent work.) off topic note (the verification for every post is really annoying and pisses me off, and most of the time you can hardly read the words.)

The verification disappears after a few posts.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on August 08, 2012, 02:51:29 AM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/qmhdb19sanbbn2d/RCM_2.15_for_TLD.7z - this is the version for the 3.15

The 3.2 test version works fine on my computer, so you might try that one.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on August 12, 2012, 03:29:56 PM
An updated test version of RCM for TLD 3.2 - use link below

Please report any bugs, if you encounter them.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Wild Rover on August 27, 2012, 12:52:06 AM
There is something strange about Elite riders of Rohan. They use hunters, while elite skirmishers use warhorses. It just feels weird, heavy cavalry should have armoured horses. Is it intentional? (Or perhaps already changed in 3.2, I play version 3.15)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on August 27, 2012, 02:57:23 AM
Corrected, thank you. New download link - http://www.mediafire.com/file/n3uhti3xilgw3tn/RCM_3.2_update.7z
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Wild Rover on August 30, 2012, 04:08:21 AM
One handed non-piercing weapons seem to be somehow useless when on foot. Well, overhead swing and thrust seem to work well, but with left and right swing it is extremely hard to inflict any damaga. Swords just tend to bounce off, inflicting 0 damage.

And it is even worse with Sword of Eorl! It is so fast that most of the time it just bounces off, even from unarmored harad levies. And I have problems on horseback, but on foot, it is even harder. I can not damage anything or anyone with left or right swing.

Oh, and about bows: PD increases BOW damage, not arrow damage, right? But since most of the power has been given to arrows  - doesn`t that make power draw somehow meaningless?

Note: I still play version 3.15

Have you ever played the old Mount and Blade? Players coming over from Warband have trouble getting used to how the swing physics work.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on August 31, 2012, 01:32:28 AM
As Merlkir said, you probably just haven't got used to old M&B physics. I've never experienced any problems you describe.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Wild Rover on August 31, 2012, 06:28:35 AM
Strange, I have actually never played Warband... Oh well. Never mind then.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on August 31, 2012, 07:21:09 AM
Check that the installation is correct then. Side swings should work normally.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Alpha on September 02, 2012, 04:56:53 AM
Hey guys,

I have been playing RCM for a few releases now and its mostly great. Just downloaded the newest version though and with the 3.2 beta patch i notice a lot of the evil war parties, especially Mordor, Isengard and Dol Guldur are mostly made up of archers. Dont know if thats how it is in Vanilla now and you guys havent touched it or what but i dont remember it being like that before and it doesnt seem right to me.

Its the same with scout parties but that makes slightly more sense to me.

Keep up the good work anyway  :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on September 04, 2012, 07:29:01 AM
That's vanilla party composition, but I'll look into it.

Thanks for your support:)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: jazzadellic on September 07, 2012, 03:19:51 PM
Trying to find the right link to download RCM. I see two links in this thread version for 3.15 and 3.2. Ok I see that there is a TLD version 3.1, and a hot fix patch labeled 3.13, and a 3.2 patch beta release, but what in the heck is version 3.15?? I currently have TLD 3.1 installed (and also the 3.13 hot fix patch), so can someone give a link for RCM for that.

I tried the links from the TLD 3.1 download thread, and the link at the beginning of this thread, and neither of them work.

*edit* I scrolled back a few pages and found links for RCM 2.13, 2.14, and 2.15.....I'm getting a headache.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on September 08, 2012, 02:48:06 AM
For TLD 3.13 you should use the latest RCM version before the one for TLD 3.15.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on September 13, 2012, 05:11:46 AM
I've been playing 3.2 with RCM the last couple of days and it still feels right. Dwarves are tough to play against Rhun, but their armor is really effective. Except for the occasional random damage burst. Had one Iron Hills battle dwarf standing atop a hill fighting off 4 or 5 enemies. Really epic feeling! :green:
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on September 13, 2012, 10:31:14 AM
Yeah, the morale system enhances the gameplay nicely. Cracking heavy infantry formation can be tough for Rhun, but if they can make the infantry run, the field is theirs. They, on the other hand, can outrun the enemy and get out of combat relatively unscathed.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Alpha on September 15, 2012, 09:39:05 AM
That's vanilla party composition, but I'll look into it.

Thanks for your support:)

Just a quick question in relation to this. Ive downloaded the editor so i can edit the party templates but cant seem to figure out what sets the composition of Lords parties. I assume its maybe something to do with the reinf parties but some clarification on how it works would be appreciated :)

Yes, the reinforcement parties are what effect the lords and town garrisons.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Conners on September 17, 2012, 12:04:30 AM
Sorry to be a bother, but where is the download link for the version which works with the latest version of TLD?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on September 17, 2012, 12:30:28 AM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/n3uhti3xilgw3tn/RCM_3.2_update.7z - this is the one for the 3.2 beta patch.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: MrGrendel on September 17, 2012, 05:14:06 PM
Did Ron go through the items and adjust all the weights?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on September 17, 2012, 05:27:36 PM
No, as far as I recall.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Conners on September 17, 2012, 08:54:23 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/n3uhti3xilgw3tn/RCM_3.2_update.7z - this is the one for the 3.2 beta patch.
Thanks.

Also, I read through the thread... good job with the argument about spears and piercing damage :). Looking forward to seeing how the RCM has been updated.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: RodriguesSting on September 26, 2012, 01:45:11 PM
Wupload is closed right now. Would someone kindly upload again on another site? Gamefront would be a good option.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on September 26, 2012, 02:29:59 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/n3uhti3xilgw3tn/RCM_3.2_update.7z - this is the latest version, for TLD 3.2.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Mr. Uruk on October 12, 2012, 02:25:30 AM
Loving RCM and I now can't play without it. I've got one thing to say negatively however and it's about the goblins of Moria. I think you know the rest. :P I understand they aren't supposed to have quality troops but I'd like it if it'd be a bit easier to amass troops. It seems to be I'd have to be quite a high level to make any real progress with them. I was in a roughly 250 vs 120 moria vs Lothlorien and my side was absolutely crushed. I feel like with these numbers I should at least have a chance, or I at least should have an easier time getting a larger party size. Everyone else is feeling GREAT. The dwarves and elves are very formiddable and overall combat feels very good, smooth, and realistic. Keep it up!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on October 12, 2012, 03:15:39 PM
Yeah, Moria's the toughest faction to play with. Still, the trolls help somewhat. Would be awesome if the player could get them, though.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Mr. Uruk on October 12, 2012, 10:13:34 PM
I was going to ask if somehow you could code that in? I will tell you I'm not a coder but J do understand it's easier to suggest than implement. It would help A LOT with playing them.

Mind entertaining two suggestions?

1. Recruitable trolls for Moria being that they are the caviest. Perhaps high food requirement and upkeep with 1 only being available rarely in the barracks.

2. Increase party size by about 100 per Moria lord being that goblins are fodder OR add a few more gobby lords?

Is any of this possible for RCM? I could help with research with a lot of things too btw.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on October 13, 2012, 09:15:57 AM
That can only be done with the mod's source code, so it's a job for the devs. Maybe you can repost your suggestions to the 3.2 beta thread?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Mr. Uruk on October 13, 2012, 09:50:20 AM
I will indeed. Thank you so much for RCM really. It's amazing. Playing as a Dunlander and experiencing the rough :P.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Copy on December 07, 2012, 05:16:18 PM
Hi,

Could you please tell me if the current RCM model will work for the new patch 3.21?

Thanks~

No, a few new items were added, so it will need to be updated.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Merlkir on December 07, 2012, 05:36:18 PM
It might be best to just wait for the full patch, we're expecting a few more items to be added.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on December 10, 2012, 08:46:04 AM
You can use this for the beta. When the devs release 3.21 I'll update RCM accordingly.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on December 16, 2012, 11:26:48 AM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/yf1z3yr02snd7ct/RCM_2.2_for_TLD_3.22.7z - an updated version of RCM for the recently released TLD 3.22.

Apart from updating the mod to be compatible with the latest patch, I've buffed the spearmen/pikemen somewhat - hope to hear your opinions on how they feel now in-game. Also, the Mordor Legions troops composition has been changed significantly, as the old TLD for 0.808 troop composition currently used in vanilla wouldn't, IMO, work that well (and it doesn't fit well with lore sometimes - i.e. BN Horsemasters in Morgul legion instead of Morgul orcs).
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on January 01, 2013, 12:20:56 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/qxnnuho5a14b9dx/RCM_2.21_for_TLD_3.22.7z - an update, as version 2.2 didn't have Mirkwood animals in it. Sorry guys, my bad.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Abelard on January 02, 2013, 01:04:05 PM
Thanks Rene, the spearmen/pikemen seem good to me by the way.

Had to start a new game for it to work.  Damn those spiders are terrifying!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on January 02, 2013, 05:56:03 PM
Sorry for that, I don't know how I managed to miss the spiders and other animals

Thanks for the feedback, Abelard! Feedback on how well the animals (I didn't change their native stats) work in RCM would be greatly appreciated too.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: WilsonMG on January 04, 2013, 09:25:57 PM
I gave this a shot because I liked some of the ideas and fixes you all included, however I was dumbfounded at how horribly nerfed Free Peoples' archers were (and archery in general) and how powerful orcs/goblins were.  I'm back to using the official v3.22 files.  I found TLD fun/challenging enough as it was, though I would like to see similar thought put into party improvements and such as you all included, realistic armor materials/impacts with said, etc. just minus the nerfing/boosting.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on January 05, 2013, 03:37:06 AM
Nerfed archers? Powerful orcs? Are you sure you installed the submod correctly?

Maybe you've continued your old game with new files? In that case you were playing with RCM items, but TLD vanilla troop stats, which might explain the frustrating results. For RCM to work you have to start the game anew.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: jonathanimal on January 05, 2013, 09:03:40 AM
thanks for keeping this updated. going to try it out in my next run through the game. not sure when it'll be though. went through some of the thread and it sounds pretty intense.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on January 05, 2013, 12:37:58 PM
Thanks for your interest!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Dragonknight on January 05, 2013, 12:55:23 PM
As an experienced native spear fighter I dont really like the way you changed spears tbh.

1.They are slower in RCM (speed is very important when using spears.....)
2.Most of them are useless when swinging them (the swing attack with blunt damage (nerfed to ~5b) is pretty useless in RCM but spearfighters need it to get enough range for a stab + blunt damage is pretty useful against heavy armored guys)
3.Stab move has "cut" damage in RCM which isnt very useful against a heavy armored uruk/orc/troll ("pierce" damage like spears have in native is much more efficient)

Might be just my opinion but they arent better nor they feel "realistic" IMO

Not sure about that but doesnt power draw only improve the damage of the bow itself? In this case the nerfed bows are kinda unfair for the good guys as the arrows who decide about the damage in RCM are evenly strong for good and bad guys.

Im not a real expert in this stuff and I might talk pure bullshit but IMO spears and bows need to be fixed in RCM.
(Installed it today so these are my very first impressions about RCM)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on January 06, 2013, 04:00:58 AM
You might want to look into the first pages of this thread to get an idea of how RCM item stats were calculated by Ron Losey (I'm not the one who designed them, mine are the troops and party templates). They are based on real-world physical calculations. Certain deficiencies of the MnB engine did make the spearmen unreasonably weak though and I've tried to correct that by upping the stats for relevant troops. Still, it many players fell the spearmen are still UP, I might buff them some more. Looking forward to hearing your opinion on this once you've played the submod some more.

AFAIK PD works on overall damage, not only the one from bows. Anyway, the good archers are superior to the bad ones in RCM, so I don't think that's an issue.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Dragonknight on January 06, 2013, 02:36:11 PM
Yep most spearfighters are terribly bad at native and a buff of them is a damn good idea. (did not manage to try out that much spearfighting bots yet)
About the archery: Starting as an elve I mostly 1hit kill every wild goblin with standart equip (bent short bow and bent elven arrows power draw at 3)
This is pretty cool but things start to become unrealistic if you try to fight uruk-hai and such heavy armored dudes. As the war started I decided to support Rohan now equiped with an elven bow and normal elven arrows (power draw still 3). Westfold was under siege as always and I joined the defense and thought like: hey I 1hit kill orcs now lets shoot some uruks. When the fight started I realized that my bow was nearly useless against armored uruks (every second hit was "delivered 0 damage"). Even a headshot only did like 10 dmg. Killing unarmored orcs with 1 hits is pretty realistic but instead of balancing the damage it feels like I am unable to even hurt heavy dudes.
Dont even want to find out how it feels to be an orc shooting a Gondor Knight  :P
Also this way around with arrows doing the greatest part of the damage the balistic damage penalties are not important anymore:
A shortbow usually does like no damage over huge distances but even at the start of the game I was able to 1 hit kill an orc across the map with my bent shortbow.
This is probably why M&B developers decided to put the main part of the damage on the bow.
Will add some more stuff next days (I do not generally dislike RCM but IMO it is still improvable)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on January 06, 2013, 04:40:55 PM
Look into the txt files, Ron has explained there why he has shifted the damage to arrows.

As for the uruks - they're pretty killable with bows in my experience. Actually, the most viable tactic against them with Rohan is to soften them up with mounted archers before delivering the final charge.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Gaxleep on January 08, 2013, 04:38:37 AM
I had not tried before the submod RCM, I did last night.
I need to confirm that the damage of the arcs is minimal or even zero, even if an arrow hits an enemy in the head with no helmet or even an enemy with light armor.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: MrGrendel on January 08, 2013, 04:49:17 AM
Armor will reduce archery damage pretty quickly as RCM uses cutting for it. Historically, arrows defeating decent armor was the exception rather than the rule.

In vanilla RCM, a bow and arrow can do about 50 cutting damage, before all the various modifiers. A headshot to an unarmored target should be more than enough to drop anything there, but I'm not sure what everything looks like in TLD RCM offhand. Are you trying to headshot Glorfindel wearing his kevlar tiara?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Gaxleep on January 08, 2013, 06:46:36 AM
Nope, but I threw arrows on the forehead of many orcs, damage = 0.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: MrGrendel on January 08, 2013, 06:54:57 AM
I've never seen unarmored targets take 0 damage from anything in RCM, quite the opposite, more so on headshots. You're probably using a crappy bow on targets that have thicker helmets than you realize. Get an elven bow.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Dragonknight on January 08, 2013, 07:12:57 AM
Dmg of elven bow is nearly the same as short bow.......
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on January 08, 2013, 09:54:36 AM
MrGrendel has summed it up quite nicely. As someone who designed those troops and tested them very extensively I can tell you for sure that an arrow in an unarmored head means almost certain death in RCM. Either you've had wrong first impressions, or there's something wrong with the way you installed the submod.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Dragonknight on January 08, 2013, 10:32:33 AM
Oh indeed an orc without any kind of helmet will always die by 1 shot (no helmet=no protection)
But shooting an uruk with his isengard whatever helmet you often (not always) do no damage at all.
However im still testing RCM and maybe it changes with a bit more power draw..........

Oh btw some items have to be fixed as their stats dont fit into RCM.
For example: Lamedon Vet Armor was buffed to 55body while the Lamedon Leader Armor is still at 35 or something like this.
You did update troops but not the items I guess this might make it feel as weird as it does sometimes.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on January 08, 2013, 11:29:51 AM
Actually I did update new items, though it is possible that I've missed a few. Thanks for pointing this one out. I'll correct it and upload the updated files - don't worry, your saves will not be lost, because the items are save-compatible, only the troops aren't.

For some reason I can't find Gondor armor meshes in  the brf files, could someone point me out the correct file? I need to have a look at this leader armor before modifying it for RCM.

But shooting an uruk with his isengard whatever helmet you often (not always) do no damage at all.

There may be different situations, but in general this is how it is intended to be, unless you hit him in the unprotected face. Welcome to the world of non-cardboard metal armor:)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Dragonknight on January 08, 2013, 11:48:45 AM
Btw I recommend you to fix some heroes of the good side like Theoden bearing only a crappy axe while he should swing the Sword of Eorl or other good heroes who dont seem to own a shield (same as the Brego Guard in normal TLD which you already fixed as I saw in troop files).
(I already did this in my TLD folder but some guys out there who use RCM might like this too)
And yea I know that hitting through a well crafted helmet is really hard and this is indeed realistic but we´re in Middleearth were atleast elven archers should be able to do some more damage (with their magic arrows etc.)
I btw like that you nerfed the elves a bit as they were insanely mortal but making them a bit better than human archers isnt "unrealistic" IMO.
(I thought about elven bows with p dmg as they are magic but this would make it too easy I guess)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on January 08, 2013, 03:09:22 PM
Oh, they are much better then human archers, look at their stats.

Thanks for pointing the heroes out, I'll do that.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Khergit Kabob on January 09, 2013, 11:39:23 PM
Does RCM seriously account for things like facemasks with real hitboxes, or does it simply offer a chance like a % chance that a helmet's protection is completely bypassed?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on January 10, 2013, 03:06:05 AM
It only re-stats the troops and items. The hitboxes are the same as in vanilla.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: MrGrendel on January 10, 2013, 07:51:30 PM
Quote
Dmg of elven bow is nearly the same as short bow.......

Quote
However im still testing RCM and maybe it changes with a bit more power draw..........

Just bear in mind that a bow that does not have a power-draw requirement also does not get any power-draw benefits.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Dragonknight on January 11, 2013, 02:03:06 AM
It does up to power draw 4.
Im aware of this advantage of elven bows .
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: MrGrendel on January 11, 2013, 08:31:24 PM
For some reason I thought a bow without PD requirement did not benefit from it, but in either case, the PD issue is why I said to get an elven bow, they will allow you to put out a lot more damage as they have higher requirements.

That is, assuming you're putting a lot of points in PD... and if you're not, don't expect to be effective at archery, right?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on February 24, 2013, 01:26:13 PM
A thought on further balancing.

The issue is especially grave in the far North, where Rhun - the main evil faction there - is outclassed in battle by nearly everything the good side has to offer, including lower level Dale troops. One of the reasons for this is their shabby armor - and in RCM they're actually buffed by being issued "heavy" armor for most of their troops (in vanilla most of them run around half-naked). Problem is, this "heavy" armor has stats like it's a light armor for the good side.

Now, I understand quite well why Ron has given out those stats in the first place - it does look like several unconnected plates of scale mail on top of some hide, with major parts left uncovered. Normally, I don't change Ron's stats, but here I'm thinking about doing this, to correct the imbalance at least to some degree.

Let's pretend, for example, that they have mail with some kind of padding under those hides. Or that it's actually a coat-of-plates, with armor plates sewn in from the inside. This kind of thinking would allow us to up the armor stats to something like 48  body and 20 leg, which is about on par with the armors of Dale.

Anyway, I'm going to test this, but I'd like to hear your thoughts too. In case you want to do the same testing yourselves, here's the link to  items file which has rhun armor buffed - http://www.mediafire.com/file/8fvbxljxw4c4772/item_kinds1.txt
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on February 27, 2013, 02:44:10 PM
Ok, buffing Rhun seems to have worked great - now they're on equal footing with Dale and can do at least something against Dwarves and Elves. Hence I'm including the buff in the new version of the mod.

Download link for RCM 2.22 - http://www.mediafire.com/file/84dx56z76dtz2cm/RCM_2.22_for_TLD_3.22.7z
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: jonathanimal on February 27, 2013, 05:58:22 PM
Cool! Will give it a shot this weekend.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on February 28, 2013, 02:55:46 PM
Great! If I may ask, please do share feedback.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: In Vain on March 01, 2013, 07:26:15 AM
It's great you're continuing this!
One small request: Could you include your module system files? It would be a lot easier to incorporate your mod into own modifications, add items, or make minor adjustments to one's own taste.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 01, 2013, 10:53:36 AM
This is the most depressing of all - there are no module files for RCM:( They were lost long ago when Ron left and all subsequent updates have been made with only the text files in hand. Maybe there is a way to reconstruct the modules from txt files?

Search on the taleworlds forums for items to tuples script, or something like that.

Thanks, found it! Here it is (mostly so that I don't lose the link) - http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=59985.0
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: In Vain on March 02, 2013, 05:00:25 AM
Oh, I should have thought of that myself. I even once tried that script, but failed miserably, obviously due to my negligible computer skillz. ::)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 05, 2013, 08:02:39 PM
Thanks to Merlkir's LP videos I've finally noticed the new Beorning armors. This means that some values will have to be changed in RCM. I hope to do this (basing the new stats on the items that Ron has statted) in the next several days.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 07, 2013, 09:28:54 AM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/9x5l585yz5yqgn2/RCM_2.25_for_TLD_3.23.7z - new version of RCM with Beorning armors and Dale and Harad helmets updated to fit their new models.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: jonathanimal on March 08, 2013, 09:57:50 AM
thanks for the update.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 14, 2013, 11:15:48 AM
Version 2.25 had some errors in the items file, which led to it being buggy, so I'm releasing an updated version with the bugs corrected. Save compatible.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/1ywiuiftgu67sfg/RCM_2.26_for_TLD_3.23.7z - here's the link.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Copy on March 17, 2013, 01:21:27 AM
BTW, it seems that the request timer does not work in RCM...
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 17, 2013, 08:44:13 AM
Request timer?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Copy on March 17, 2013, 01:42:47 PM
Well, I mean the timer in the quest log...
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 17, 2013, 04:06:29 PM
You mean the timers for the quests? Should be fine, I've never had any problems with them.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: AntoniusArcadius on March 18, 2013, 07:54:20 AM
Thanks for all the hard work on this guys!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 18, 2013, 08:35:45 AM
And thank you too, good sir.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: CppCoder on March 22, 2013, 09:55:23 AM
You mean the timers for the quests? Should be fine, I've never had any problems with them.

Although it isn't an RCM problem, The quest timer is bugged. Expect a hotfix by next month to fix it. :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 22, 2013, 12:44:29 PM
Ok, thanks for keeping us informed Cpp.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: benpenguin on March 23, 2013, 11:33:07 PM
Is there any other link I can download RCM?  I'm in China and it seems to be blocked.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on March 24, 2013, 12:00:40 PM
Hmm, can you  give me a link to an uploading site that the Great Firewall doesn't block? Perhaps something in the cn domain? I'll upload RCM there for you.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Copy on March 25, 2013, 10:26:16 PM
Is there any other link I can download RCM?  I'm in China and it seems to be blocked.

You can check this post:
http://bbs.mountblade.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=372679&extra=page%3D1

The download link is:
http://pan.baidu.com/share/link?shareid=356769&uk=2751804330

P.S. I am not sure whether it will work in the Chinese version.
P.P.S. Nice to see Chinese guys here~ :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 22, 2013, 06:49:27 AM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/1ywiuiftgu67sfg/RCM_2.26_for_TLD_3.23.7z - current version of the RCM.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Kwal on April 22, 2013, 11:56:22 AM
Thanks for the update. Now I'm trying this for the first time and notice that there is no more pierce damage on thrusts and elven bows. The only weapons I found that do piercing damage are axes. Why is this?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 22, 2013, 06:47:15 PM
I'll quote Ron's conversion notes (I think I put them into the download too BTW):

Note on Cut, Pierce, and Blunt damage:  Anything that does equal damage against armor and living tissue is "cut" damage, the way the game is set up.  Blunt and Pierce do the same thing, that is, penetrate armor much better than they damage living tissue.  The only difference between them is that "blunt" is non-lethal.  Therefore, a knife or sword is cut damage, even in a stab ... an ice pick or screwdriver would be pierce damage, and at a much lower damage number than the knife, as they penetrate armor much the same as the knife but make a less damaging hole in the body.  Axes, like war hammers, are pierce - they make a smaller hole than a sword of similar weight, but the weight is concentrated at the head for maximum penetration.  A mace or war hammer is pierce damage, not blunt - nobody is going to call a flanged mace non-lethal.  Arrows are cut damage - arrowheads make a terrible wound, but they lack the cross-sectional density to pierce all that much armor (compared to their damage potential).  Rifle bullets would be pierce damage - they will go through a lot relative to the size of wound they make.  I am aware that this does not make a lot of sense, if you take the common use of the word "pierce" and equate it with "puncture wound" (medically, a puncture is a wound substantially deeper than its surface footprint) ... but that is not the way the game handles these numbers.  In-game, they only effect the way armor is computed.  Cut 50 has the same effect on armor as pierce 25, but does twice as much damage to the character (regardless of how much that actually comes out, after the random damage roll and the armor reduction).  Generally, when these numbers are applied to real weapons, anti-armor weapons ("pierce") seem to be a little slower to use, are often a little shorter, and produce about two-thirds the tissue damage of more general-purpose ("cut") weapons of similar weight, bulk, and/or volume - which gives them a slight advantage against armor but a slight penalty to damage and usability against unarmored targets, relative to their general-purpose weapon counterparts.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: SRACon17 on April 23, 2013, 12:47:57 AM
is this compatible with the warband animations mod? because when i install RCM on top of that, i get an error.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 23, 2013, 09:40:04 AM
AFAIK the warband animations mod isn't currently compatible with TLD itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Shingen on April 23, 2013, 12:55:04 PM
Warband animations won't work with MnB engine.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: SRACon17 on April 25, 2013, 11:51:56 AM
okay, it's not exactly warband animations, but this http://mbx.streetofeyes.com/index.php/topic,2889.0.html
is that nit compatible with RCM? :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on April 25, 2013, 12:14:53 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/file/9xh03tpem9r29es/TLD_NewAnims_v1dot3_for_RCM.7z - here's the RCM-compatible version.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: SRACon17 on April 25, 2013, 12:48:58 PM
wow thanks :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: bilalst14 on May 04, 2013, 10:40:43 AM
rgl error http://j1305.hizliresim.com/19/4/mrm00.png
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on May 05, 2013, 06:47:02 AM
That's the Warband animations bug, not related to RCM itself.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: jonathanimal on May 17, 2013, 02:02:23 PM
rhun is tough in the latest rcm. it offsets how easy gundabad is to defeat so i like it.

i lost twice trying to siege their last main camp as dale. finally erebor sieged them and rhun finally got wiped out. i buffed erebor's leaders with more troops to help as well. not sure if it was necessary. maybe. after losing twice i didn't want to gamble. before that rhun's leader was wandering around with 17 fully upgraded cavalry that defeated my mixed bag of 45-50 men of dale. a 1/3 were probably not upgraded. they're tough. but i'm trying rcm for the challenge but i could see a first time player of tld getting frustrated.

maybe my tld skills aren't as fancy as i thought they were. so is it just me or is rhun tough as nails for anyone else as well? i'm not suggesting that it gets changed. i'm just curious how others are doing against them.

rene mentioned some changes in regards to rhun a while back but this is the first version i've spent serious time with. so i can't compare it to older versions.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Lengua Muerta on May 17, 2013, 04:33:56 PM
rhun is tough in the latest rcm.
You can see a difference, yes. I agree.

before that rhun's leader was wandering around with 17 fully upgraded cavalry that defeated my mixed bag of 45-50 men of dale. a 1/3 were probably not upgraded. they're tough.
maybe my tld skills aren't as fancy as i thought they were. so is it just me or is rhun tough as nails for anyone else as well? i'm not suggesting that it gets changed. i'm just curious how others are doing against them.
In my opinion, sorry, Dale troops... suck. Even with RCM.
Anyway, maybe it was because your troops were not upgraded as you said, but a 17-20 Rhun party is easy to take out. I guess you got unlucky - Rhun troops are though, yes, but not much. Most of their army is composed by Cavalry, Light and Heavy, which can be defeated with pikes and bows. Their Infantry are 2H Swordmasters, which are not dangerous at all.
They are tough. They can really be dangerous sometimes, but I think you find them harder to defeat because of the Dale troops you're using.

but i'm trying rcm for the challenge but i could see a first time player of tld getting frustrated.
I don't think a new player would get frustrated using RCM :P
It is fun. It makes Orcs a little bit tougher. I like that.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: jonathanimal on May 18, 2013, 08:11:04 AM
In my opinion, sorry, Dale troops... suck. Even with RCM.

ha. maybe. my last complete playthrough was with lothlorien and i've heard they're one of the easiest factions to play with. their archers are great and their faction leaders have more troops than dale already. with the exception of the main faction leader, dale leaders have 50 or so troops. mirkwood has been seen with 80-120 at this point in the game. it seems like dale troops are jacks of all trades but masters of none as well.

i know a 17-20 rhun party is for the most easy but i have trouble when for some odd reason it's the main faction leader and every member except maybe one or two is fully upgraded cavalry. it's not that way when his party is bigger but when it's small it seems like every member is fully upgraded the two times i saw him. in combat i actually sat back and watched an upgraded rhun cav knocked off his horse take out 4-5 dale troops on foot no problem. i think my difficulty level is somewhere in the low 70% area (i'm at work so i can't say for sure).

overall the rcm experience is tons of fun. it's really intense. would easily recommend it to anyone who has spent time with the latest vanilla version looking for more realism in their gameplay. i think vanilla has its merits but i think someone (maybe rene?) described rcm as hardcore mode which sounds right to me.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: manekemaan on November 12, 2013, 10:30:51 AM
Hey back to this mod once again (sorry for necroing this topic)

is this still compatible with the latest TLD? And what version of RCM should I use?
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on November 19, 2013, 12:35:58 PM
Yes, it is (and thanks for bumping the thread BTW). Use this version:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/1ywiuiftgu67sfg/RCM_2.26_for_TLD_3.23.7z
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: manekemaan on November 24, 2013, 02:59:18 PM
I'm guessing this isn't save game compatible?

np for the bump :p
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on November 25, 2013, 10:50:34 AM
Unfortunately not. Mount and Blade slightly modifies the troop stats for each new game and saves them in the saves file, which leades to the absence of save compatibility with mods that change troop stats.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: manekemaan on November 25, 2013, 01:37:37 PM
was afraid so. thanks for the quick answer!
Title: IS RCM compatible with Speed/stability fix?
Post by: Strategyman on December 13, 2013, 03:12:18 AM
I'm wondering if they are compatible, the last time I used both of them the war wouldn't start on two saves after hours of game play. Now that may not have been the cause, but I'm just wondering if anyone else has had success using both of them.
Title: Re: IS RCM compatible with Speed/stability fix?
Post by: Triglav on December 13, 2013, 10:39:55 AM
Afaik RCM hasn't been updated since a couple versions ago, so likely there would be conflicts.
Title: Re: IS RCM compatible with Speed/stability fix?
Post by: Kwal on December 13, 2013, 12:50:52 PM
In the last page of the RCM thread you can find a version compatible with TLD 3.23, though I don't know if it works with the coldfix. I've been using the Speed and Stability mod for a long time now and some months ago I tried RCM briefly and didn't have any problems (I only removed it because it didn't suit my preferences). So I guess there's a chance it will work for you as well.
Title: Re: IS RCM compatible with Speed/stability fix?
Post by: Strategyman on December 15, 2013, 11:25:36 AM
Well I played it without problems with the two mods on my old save(might be from 3.22 but most prob from 3.23) using the newest version. But for late into playing(94days) Gondor Beorn was destroyed, so Gandalf comes to talk to me, shortly after I get app crashes now with no apparent cause, the same damned thing happens on my back up save.

Welp thats all screwed. 99% sure the mods have nothing to do with it, and that this is some internal error. Going to try and make up a clean install and try to avoid having an entire save wasted, and to make sure it just isn't an unavoidable save corruption. Its weird though, it happens after me talking to gandalf, like a day later, so it might have nothing to do with the faction destruction event!

Any of you mind trying out the save to see if it happens for you?
Title: Re: IS RCM compatible with Speed/stability fix?
Post by: FleshyStarfish on December 15, 2013, 04:23:28 PM
Well I played it without problems with the two mods on my old save(might be from 3.22 but most prob from 3.23) using the newest version. But for late into playing(94days) Gondor Beorn was destroyed, so Gandalf comes to talk to me, shortly after I get app crashes now with no apparent cause, the same damned thing happens on my back up save.

Welp thats all screwed. 99% sure the mods have nothing to do with it, and that this is some internal error. Going to try and make up a clean install and try to avoid having an entire save wasted, and to make sure it just isn't an unavoidable save corruption. Its weird though, it happens after me talking to gandalf, like a day later, so it might have nothing to do with the faction destruction event!

Any of you mind trying out the save to see if it happens for you?

Can you confirm what version you have of TLD please?  I would really like to install the speed and stability mod, but haven't done so as I was not sure that it was fully integratable after the coldfix.

FS
Title: Re: IS RCM compatible with Speed/stability fix?
Post by: Strategyman on December 16, 2013, 01:23:55 AM
3.23 without cold fix, also the crash I have found out is caused by saving, a few moments later and BAM appcrash! How in the nine hells has this happened!? Can anyone give me a work around? I'll upload the save later to make sure this has nothing to do with my OS getting in the way.
Title: Re: IS RCM compatible with Speed/stability fix?
Post by: FleshyStarfish on December 16, 2013, 08:35:34 AM
3.23 without cold fix, also the crash I have found out is caused by saving, a few moments later and BAM appcrash! How in the nine hells has this happened!? Can anyone give me a work around? I'll upload the save later to make sure this has nothing to do with my OS getting in the way.

S&M

I gave a few suggestions already for save games.  There is no real fix that I know of at present.  Some believe its due to too many parties being on the map.  I've noticed that my games get corrupted when I save right after a major event (e.g. death of a faction).

FS
Title: Re: IS RCM compatible with Speed/stability fix?
Post by: Strategyman on December 16, 2013, 05:54:24 PM
Ahh my bad, On my new save I started today I have multiple backups at every step/event. So thanks anyways for replying. Also Elves/Dwarves in RCM are OP! I'm currently running around as a Dunedian equiped with a warpick, do 30-80 dmg on armored trolls! And not too long ago I won a battle 735v106(me) with all my Elven coalition army and only lost 5 guys! INSANE! And don't get me started on maxed out dwarves with their war axes! I'm quite tempted to send half my fortune their way and make the other half of my army dwarf!

Didn't have it this easy as Gondor, Elven armor gets up to 75 only costing around 4000 RSP, while the best Gondor can muster for 3000 is 55! Atleast they had Lossnarch and Axe's, that was a real saver for my sieges. But alas I can't play it anymore :(.
Title: Re: IS RCM compatible with Speed/stability fix?
Post by: Rene Korda on December 24, 2013, 05:49:14 AM
Apart from the troops, items and army composition files RCM only updates the module.ini file and only a small part of it, highlighted and easy to copy-paste into another module.ini file. So unless you're trying to combine it with another troop or item mod you should be fine. Also, RCM is updated and current, the latest version can be downloaded via the link on the last page of the RCM thread.
Title: Re: IS RCM compatible with Speed/stability fix?
Post by: Rene Korda on December 24, 2013, 05:58:13 AM
Ahh my bad, On my new save I started today I have multiple backups at every step/event. So thanks anyways for replying. Also Elves/Dwarves in RCM are OP! I'm currently running around as a Dunedian equiped with a warpick, do 30-80 dmg on armored trolls! And not too long ago I won a battle 735v106(me) with all my Elven coalition army and only lost 5 guys! INSANE! And don't get me started on maxed out dwarves with their war axes! I'm quite tempted to send half my fortune their way and make the other half of my army dwarf!

Didn't have it this easy as Gondor, Elven armor gets up to 75 only costing around 4000 RSP, while the best Gondor can muster for 3000 is 55! Atleast they had Lossnarch and Axe's, that was a real saver for my sieges. But alas I can't play it anymore :(.

Are you using full damage modifiers? Or maybe small battlesize, so the battles restart all the time and your archers never run out of arrows? 735 vs. 106 losing only 5 sounds a bit far-fetched, even with the Elves.

RCM does change the balance between factions, mainly due to how important armor becomes in conditions of verisimilitude. The low-armored troops are considerably weaker with it. That's why Rhun troops are mostly armored in RCM vs. them being unarmored in vanilla, otherwise the balance in Northern battles would be too skewed.
Title: Re: IS RCM compatible with Speed/stability fix?
Post by: Strategyman on December 24, 2013, 12:31:27 PM
No I have an army of mid-high tier elves and I eat orcs for breakfest, even Uruk-Hai. And Olog-hai became a joke after I got my Imaldris decorated armor.

The high armor ratings combined with the shields(this is the same for archers at high tier) makes them die at such low rates, as long as you have at least a skill level of 5 in surgery. On average I'll have 5-10 wounded. This is with me using kiting tactics and all, it starts to even out how I'm outnumbered.

The only place I lost alot of elven troops was on Pelenor fields 300(me+Prince Imrahil)vs. 1085(harad,umbar,Mordor), which was only 34 out of my 106. Also I don't always run around with a full party, I usually station my troops elsewhere and pull them when I need them for large battles or a scrap metal run.

P.S. I use battle sizes of 337, so in outnumberred battles its insane that I'll only lose 34 considering.
Title: Re: IS RCM compatible with Speed/stability fix?
Post by: Rene Korda on December 30, 2013, 01:55:40 AM
With kiting, well-upgraded party etc. - yeah, sounds like it. Problem is, if we want to retain the realistic feel and keep true to lore we can't really nerf the Elves. The only way to balance things is to make them more costly, their parties smaller and the evil parties - larger. That would bring in a host of problems with auto-calc though. So it'll probably stay the way it is.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Rene Korda on December 30, 2013, 05:28:38 AM
Since people have been having problems finding it, here is the link to the latest version of RCM:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/1ywiuiftgu67sfg/RCM_2.26_for_TLD_3.23.7z (http://www.mediafire.com/file/1ywiuiftgu67sfg/RCM_2.26_for_TLD_3.23.7z)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Khamukkamu on September 24, 2014, 02:19:14 PM
Dunno if people are still interested in RCM, but I'm trying to make it compatible with the Warband version.

I think I got party_templates and module.ini right already. However, Troops.txt will be quite a pain (SO MANY TO GO THROUGH!)

I was just wondering if anyone remembered if RCM tried to change some troop equipment as well. From comparing some troops in TLD 3.3 with troops from RCM, there are some with extra equipment, different equipment, and/or reduced equipment.

For example, in RCM, some Dwarven units (mostly archers) have throwing axes in addition to their default gear, whereas in TLD 3.3, they don't.

I'm just asking because it is easy to copy+paste proficiencies and stats, but harder to do equipment :(

If RCM didnt add/change/reduced troop gear, then I can finish this fast. If RCM did, then it'll be quite a long project :(

I can't just replace the TLD Troops.txt with RCM troops.txt cause it leads to errors, so I have to go through the text file with an editor :(


EDIT: I just read through 56 pages of this thread and found that Rene Korda only added/modified a few troop equipment. Therefore, I'll just stick to the troop stats/profs and not change anything else :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Khamukkamu on September 28, 2014, 02:08:42 PM
Double post, but this needed its own :)

After a couple of days of work, I have finally managed to port RCM to TLD 3.3 (Warband)

Download the files here: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3KmMUNAyIh4b3phQjNVNndkMTA&usp=drive_web (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3KmMUNAyIh4b3phQjNVNndkMTA&usp=drive_web)

For those that do not know, Realistic Combat Model (RCM) was a submod started by Ron Losey, and continued by the community (mostly by Rene Korda and Grothag), that made heavy changes equipment values, attempting to recreate the 'realistic' feel of combat.
Applying this method to the fantasy world of LOTR yields something that players may feel very unbalanced, as the equipment of the "Good" side are relatively better than that of the "Evil" side. For example, almost all Elven equipment are really powerful, while Dunlanding equipment makes them nothing much but fodder.
Troops.txt was also modified by RK and Grothag so that it becomes more compatible with RCM equipment.

Therefore, TLD with RCM is very challenging.

I haven't tested it extensively (only using the dev options within the nightly builds such as Scene Test), but it should be the same as RCM for TLD 3.23.

Have fun! :)

-Kham's edits
-- Now compatible with TLD 3.3 (Warband)
-- Went through Troops, Party_Templates, and Item_kinds1 line by line, using HokieBT's editor and WinMerge, comparing with Vanilla TLD (Warband) in order not to merge things incorrectly.
-- Kept Leaders and companions the same as Vanilla TLD (Warband)
-- Kept RK's Fighting Uruk Hai Pike Champion (replacing Uruk Hai Berserker) as per their notes
-- Kept Stats of Troll, Armoured Troll, and Olog Hai with vanilla TLD, but lowered levels for autocalc. Would need to test if OP.
-- Added +1 iron flesh to Orc and Uruk elite troops. Didn't feel right that elite orcs had 0 iron flesh, while elite Uruks have the same iron flesh as 1 tier lower.
-- Re-added Octoburn's changes (Added unused Dwarven helms to dale) as these were the ones on Vanilla TLD 3.3 (Warband)
-- Made the item name changes as per Ron's notes (Rohan Maille --> Leather) or something like that.
-- Made some minor changes to item flags (i.e unit had shield but shield flag not checked)
-- Slightly increased armour of regular trolls and increased damage of Tree Trunk (+5)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: The Yogi on October 03, 2014, 12:34:24 PM
Thank you Khamukkamu!

I never play any mod in anything  but RCM if I can help it so your work is very welcome! RCM has been sorely missed...
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Khamukkamu on October 03, 2014, 01:52:54 PM
Thanks :)

I've checked and this is still compatible with the latest nightly build: https://bitbucket.org/Swyter/tld-downloads/downloads  (https://bitbucket.org/Swyter/tld-downloads/downloads)

I don't think anyone else have tried it out, but I do remember you from the 'ole RCM debate days of TLD and perhaps you can let me know if there is anything different from what you remember. As per my notes, I kind of buffed the Trolls, Olog Hais, and Ents by choosing not to modify their stats (i.e they still have Vanilla TLD 3.3 stats), but proficiencies are RCM numbers.

Really good to know that there are still people interested in RCM :)
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: The Yogi on October 04, 2014, 12:55:09 AM
I've tried it, and seems to work just fine so far. However, discovered one problem (I Think, unless it's WAD): Lances aren't couchable.

If modding the textfile, for every Lance the first data bit needs to be edited from

arena_lance 0  138706948 (or some similar number)

to

arena_lance 0 3359899652

same for all other lances.

Thinking it might possibly be WAD because I'm not sure there are any instances of couched lancing in the books. Lot of talks of Spears being used, but not Lances. Not certain, I'm no loremaster. Anyway, to my mind, if there are Lances in the mod, they should be couchable.
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Khamukkamu on October 04, 2014, 12:14:43 PM
Just tested and confirmed that Lances are not couchable in my RCM port :(

Must have been when I merged old RCM itemkinds1 with TLD 3.3 warband Itemkinds1.

Good thing Swyter listed all the lances in the game here when he fixed the same bug during the warband port: https://trello.com/c/59SrpIyb/44-make-spears-couchable (https://trello.com/c/59SrpIyb/44-make-spears-couchable)

I'll fix it this weekend when I get the time :) Thanks for reporting!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Khamukkamu on October 04, 2014, 06:21:49 PM
Fixed :)

Grab it here: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3KmMUNAyIh4b3phQjNVNndkMTA&usp=drive_web (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3KmMUNAyIh4b3phQjNVNndkMTA&usp=drive_web)

Made spears mentioned in Swyter's trello card couchable (https://trello.com/c/59SrpIyb/44-make-spears-couchable) (http://(https://trello.com/c/59SrpIyb/44-make-spears-couchable)) .
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: hayate666 on January 14, 2015, 05:02:28 PM
Awesome that you updated this! I've been wanting to play with RCM again lately and now I finally can!
Title: Re: Combat Damage Model (RCM) - merged threads
Post by: Khamukkamu on January 19, 2015, 03:19:58 PM
I'm happy that someone who played RCM before is finally able to try it out :) I made some changes that are slightly different (e.g trolls) from the previous one, so i'm not sure if it still 'feels' the same as what was intended.