Couple Qs: 1."Overwhelming Fear" description - mistake or not - developpers please:-)

[unmerged(1133)]

1. The description says "the unit always keep formation" - which don't really match the name of the skill.

2. Also the description of the deepwood archers says "good in woods". What exactly is the "good" in the woods? Shoot well from a woodland area, fight melee relatively well in woods or reduce the defence bonus of the enemy inside woods?
3. Nightvision (the giants skill) - the description says it see in night and fog but is that skill really useful for a melee fighter (I understand it is priceless for the archers)?

 

[unmerged(248976)]

1. It’s a passive skill which means, that in the battle you get the + bonuses listed in the description of the various formations but you are not affected by the – disadvantages (like „weak against cavalry charge” etc.).

2. Yes, „good” means bonuses for armour, archery and melee attack, too.

3. It’s very useful because enemy units become visible, so you can use your strategy without the enemy surprise you. In melee attack it doesn’t matter.

 

[Kjeld]

Thanks for the information Linda.
By the way, I would be interested if you could make some numbers available about the various penalties and bonuses in general. For example : we know that very tired units (in the red) fight less efficiently than rested units, but by how much ? is that a 25% penalty to damage ? 50 ? Same things about formation +/-, terrain/weather penalties, or unit-based bonuses (what does "effective against lightly armored enemies" exactly). The number cruncher in me is very curious

 

[unmerged(248976)]

Ok the „number cruncher in you” can get his numbers:

1. About very tired units:

The fatigue of units effects the stamina and it gives penalty to the attack rate. For example 50% stamina loss = 15% penalty to attack rate, 0% stamina = 30% penalty, etc.

2. About unit-based bonuses:

„Unit-based bonuses” are not really bonuses but traits, only a little explanation. We just give you some tips to decide which are the most effective units against particular enemies.

3. About terrain/weather conditions:

Terrain types:

Forest
-20% Movement Speed
+20% Stamina loss while you are running
-15% Archery effectivness
+50% Defense against archery

Scrubland
-20% Movement Speed
+20% Stamina loss while you are running
+20% Defense against archery

Shallow water
-30% Movement Speed
+30% Stamina loss while you are running

Weather:

Fog:
-Maximum sight range: 500 m
-50% Archery range
-50% Archery effectivness

Night:
-Maximum sight range: 200 m
-50% Archery range
-50% Archery effectivness

Storm:
-90% Archery range
-75% Archery effectivness

 

[Kjeld]

Wow, thanks a ton for the explanations

„Unit-based bonuses” are not really bonuses but traits, only a little explanation. We just give you some tips to decide which are the most effective units against particular enemies.

Okay, for example, when it is said that, say, wastelands warriors are effective against lightly armored units, it doesn't mean that they will get an additional bonus on top of what is written in the unit details, but it means that you are pointing out that, with their relatively low damage but faster attack rate compared to other heavy infantry, they are more well suited to fight troops with light armor (flat damage reduction) than other heavies.

Or the "strong in woods" that Springborn gets is because they can select the appropriate unit skills once they reach level 5/10.

Did I understand correctly ?

EDIT : And one last question (promise ) : what about unit categories (aka : spearmen, heavy cavalry ...). What advantages, for example, does a light infantry gain when fighting a heavy infantry in woods, or a spearman in formation fighting a heavy cavalry in hills ?

 

[unmerged(248976)]

You understood correctly my last post.

About the advantages of unit categories:

1. Archers
+ strong from heights (they can shoot more effective)
- very weak in the night, fog and storm (less shooting range)
- very weak vs. knights (the archers can’t shoot at them very well because they have heavy armour and they can trample the archers)
+ strong vs. light armoured units (more damage)
- weak vs. units with shields and heavy armour (less damage)

2. Light Infantry
+ strong on hard terrain (they don’t get penalty in forests and scrubland)
+ strong in the night, fog and storm (they don’t get penalty)
- weak vs. knights (little damage)
- weak vs. archers (because of their light armour)
- weak vs. fast attackers (because of their light armour)
- weak vs. heavy armoured units (little damage)

3. Heavy Infantry
+ strong on open field (the only one terrain type where they don’t get penalty)
- weak on hard terrain (penalty on other terrain type)
- weak vs. crossbowmen (because of the armour piercing ability of crossbowmen)
- weak vs. spearmen (because of the armour piercing ability of spearmen)
+ strong vs. low damage units (because of their heavy armour)
- weak vs. armour piercing

4. Spearmen
+ strong formation bonus (they get double formation bonuses)
- weak on hard terrain
+ strong vs. knights (they can stop the trampling and good damage because of the armour piercing)
- weak vs. archers (low HP and they don’t have armour)
+ strong vs. heavy armoured units (because of armour piercing)
- weak vs. light armoured units (low damage)

5. Cavalry
- weak on hard terrain
- weak in storm (they get penalty)
- weak vs. archers (low HP and no armour but if they move, they are effective against archers)
- very weak vs. spearmen (spearmen can stop the trampling)
- weak vs. fast attackers
- weak vs. heavy armoured units

6. Knights
- very weak on hard terrain
- weak in storm
- weak vs. crossbowmen
- weak vs. spearmen
+ very strong trample (they can trample most of the units)
- weak vs. armour piercing

 

[unmerged(1133)]

Nice; thank you

But I would have to point out there are some inconsistency - ie the spearmen should not be strong against heavy armor. Polearms are considered strong against the mounted units not because of the armor piercing but because of their big reach so they are able to hurt the mounts or use the mounted unit own momentum to knock the riders down. Actually the spearmen (pikemen etc) are helpless against every infantry with shields no matter they are considered "armor piercing".

And this reminds me to ask another question:
Every unit has two defensive values - "armor" and "defense". For example the Camelots knights have very high armor but relatively low defense. The Royal Guards have much less "armor" value but nevertheless significantly higher defense. Judging from the archers it is the "defense" value which matters. So what exactly is the "armor piercing" ability - does it halves the real armor or the defense value? And if it halves the real armor how the defense value is effected?
Also I guess the -50% enemy defense halves the "defense" value; what will happen if you equip such artifact on an hero with attached archers?


Oh, and two quick tips for the next installment:
1. Use "polearm" as a class name instead of "spearmen"
2. Add the possibility to custom name (rename) the units

No royalties needed

 

[unmerged(248976)]

1. Actually the armor-piercing ability effects the armor but I can say about the crossbowmen (who also have this ability), that their armor-piercing halves the defense.
2. If you equip such artifact on a hero attachad to an archer unit, your archers will get this ability, so they halve the defense of the attacked enemy units.
3. It’s unlikely that in King Arthur we change the name of spearmen but in King Arthur 2... everything is possible

 

[unmerged(1133)]

Of course I mean King Arthur 2

About the archers - so they will become like the crossbowmen but without all their pros. I guess the skills and the artifacts which reduce the attack time will work too (the artifacts which increase the attack surely increase the archer's attack)... they will shoot like a machine gun

BTW - there is a logic in halving only the "armor" value with the armor-piercing ability.

 

[Kjeld]

Thanks for all the great info.

Every unit has two defensive values - "armor" and "defense". For example the Camelots knights have very high armor but relatively low defense. The Royal Guards have much less "armor" value but nevertheless significantly higher defense.

On the unit info screen, there are actually 4 values : hit points, armor, according to the tooltip, is a flat value substracted from enemy damage, ranged defense is just what it says , and resistance is a % reduction to damage (as it says on the tooltip). I suspect (not quite sure), that the "defense" value is an aggregate of all of the unit defensive factors.
So the effectiveness of an unit protection against melee is really the combination of armor and resistance (with armor beeing comparatively more effective over fast attacking low damage units, and resistance beeing the only worthwile protection against massive monster/sidhe/hero damage).
Something like total damage = (damage-armor)*(100-resistance) or (damage*(100-resistance))-armor.
Royal guards or Raven Guards have a beastly resistance value iirc, even if their armor is not that high.
It's what I can deduce from the tooltips at least.

 

[unmerged(1133)]

Seems logical; I would like very much to see it is possible to test how hero archers with defense halving artifact will fare against Royal Guards (low armor, high defence) and against Camelot knights (high armor, low defense).
Also giving to the hero -30% attack rate artifact shows the attack rate of the melee unit reduced on the unit info screen but no reduce is shown for archers.

 

[unmerged(250220)]

Oh man, these numbers are great to know.

... is there a possibility we could someday be able to see this easier in-game? Like a knowledge base section somewhere in it?

 

[unmerged(1133)]

Oh man, these numbers are great to know.

... is there a possibility we could someday be able to see this easier in-game? Like a knowledge base section somewhere in it?

I guess it should be called "Encyclopedia Britannica"

 

[unmerged(250220)]

I guess it should be called "Encyclopedia Britannica"

I can support this.

 

[unmerged(270113)]

I can support this.

Agreed, a central spot for these details is a need