To improve both realism and balance, I’m thinking that missile units probably should have a limit on ammo, and after that they will be low-on-ammo but never out-of-ammo. They will still be able to shoot but with reduced fire power. I don’t think it’s entirely unrealistic that they were able to reuse or resupply ammo in the middle of a battle, at least under certain conditions. Another idea is to have some kind of supply depot unit, e.g. a wagon of ammo that you could resupply from if you are within range. Would be interesting to see some historical info on this.
Awesome. Wagons, makes it interesting.
nice idea (twenty characters)
I like the idea now. It makes sense… Lol
So according to what you said, we would have to remove the auto fire function from the ranged units. Other wise the ammo would finish really quickly. It would need to be replaced by a fire-on - command system in which u must drag the aim arrow on a unit to lock on and fire.
Also I would venture to say that the archer close quarters combat be improved so that it is decent enough to 1v1 a samurai unit with 30% health.
Once this stuff is implemented we would really need a tutorial mode… Other wise newbies will have serious problems and might think the game is trash.
A simple tutorial explaining the games mechanics and controls is enough.
Or maybe a video? Haha.
No more men… There are already too much…
Scorpion is a spammer…
Guys go check out what I said on the things we would like to see in SW topic
I actually believe any increase to damage would make the already great archers (who I believe are great and balanced in ability) almost over powered.
I think that the idea of having set numbers you have to have kind of kills the game in a way, because people will want to have all gun battles, or pike battles, or use rush armies, or become the Mongols. People will want to RP these fights, and having set numbers for everything will kill that potential to bits.
Its just my opinion… I don’t think people having an army of a single unit would be good anyways… This is supposed to be based on realistic armies so having only spears or Cav wouldn’t be good… And probably unfair…
Try to reflect on people having an army of 12 Calvary… It would be single sided…
I have a compromise. There could be different modes. One is the more casual, choose anything you want (under how much currency you have) and just battle, allowing for more scenarios and reenactments. The other would be tournament mode, where you would be hard pressed to try and use real tactics.
Some thoughts, there are two different levels here. One is the simulation level, that for example calculates how fast and far arrows fly, and how easy they penetrate different kinds of armour. The other is the scenario level, that may put restrictions on the amount of ammo or the type and quality of armour. My view is that it is the developers job to make the best simulation engine possible but that, as I mentioned in the other post, players should have complete freedom to choose scenarios parameters. So the way I see it, these different modes would correspond to scenarios. There may be different versions of the simulation, but only as a linear evolution of the engine over time.
Okay… I understand nikodil… What do you think about the lock-on ranged fire function? And the damage change/improvement?
The user interface design philosophy is that micro management should be available but optional. So fire-at-will should be the default. But admittedly the aim/lock/hold-fire gesture needs to be improved, it’s currently to difficult to use. About damage change, possibly, there are many things to improve there and balancing is complex.
Runners for resupply were very common for archers. Supply wagon and camp would be awesome and add an element of defense to the game. In a campaign mode it might make sense to limit the number of arrows. If you March off to war and with 100 arrows per man, after a few battles you might be down to only a few, especially if you lost and had to quit the field. Archers that stop in an area that was being fired upon would have immediately begun collecting arrows. Also when archers are dueling they could easily be picking up the enemies arrows and firing them back, but that is a minor point and not good for morale. Archers, historically were extremely destructive and immensely valuable and hard to train.
Maybe instead of castles there could be villages or towns as a form of terrain. Castles seem more like a campaign feature, unless another game called siege wars was developed
Also I wouldn’t display tiredness since in a real scenario no one is going to say general our troops are 67% tired. It is up to the general to know what they are demanding of the troops.
True enough I guess. Castles won’t be needed then. Villages and town are good.
Tbh, seeing the tiredness level of the unit is not that bad, you can make them rest or sprint according to it.
I believe a big help to all of the introduced things would be a graphic update something like total war graphics or a little less for them with kill animations
Sir war is hell be careful what you wish for how realistic do you really want it to be?
I’,? I’m going to put my two cents in.
I believe that this game needs more user interface options. ie a openable/closeable window for units that allow you to:
Set movement speed, if you add a unit fatigue system.
As was discussed above, a fire-at-will/ manual fire toggle, with ammo. The fix is to give units a surplus of ammo to last them through a decent amount of time in the battle. Afterwards they can be used as irregular melee troops, and a melee/firing toggle, so when you move the archers to an enemy unit, they stop and fire when in range instead of charging into the enemy, unless you want them to. This adds to what you were saying about player scenarios. There’s a lot more I have, but I’m trying to take into consideration that your team isn’t creative arts or Sega, and you all have limitations. It’s just a few suggestions. I wouldn’t be posting this if I didn’t have hopes for this game.
"Build a wall."
No seriously. Walls for units to crouch behind. Arrows and muskets don’t hit as hard and troops don’t turn into disorganized blob when fighting behind it. Phalanx of sorts.