Lanzenträger und Mönche verbessern / Buff up Spearmen and Monks

[Wolfram92]

Hi,

es wurde ja teilweise angesprochen und ich hätte einen Vorschlag wie man Lanzenträger und Mönche verbessern könnte.

Die Lanzenträger sind ja mittlerweile etwas resistenter gegen Pfeile was ich grundsätzlich gut finde. Allerdings wäre es auch hilfreich wenn man das Rennen der Lanzenträger und Mönche (bei aggressiver Grundhaltung) grundsätzlich einbauen könnte. Damit meine ich nicht, dass Lanzenträger immer rennen sollen, sondern (sofern das möglich wäre), dass sich die Lanzenträger im Schritttempo auf ein anvisiertes Ziel zu bewegen und dann automatisch anfangen zu rennen. Das würde zum Beispiel das Stürmen einer Burg erleichtern und KIs wie Phillip und den Abt stärker machen.

Zum Beispiel könnten sich so die Einheiten in normalen Schritttempo auf eine feindliche Burg zu bewegen und sobald diese in Reichweite ist automatisch mit dem Rennen anfangen. Gleiches gilt natürlich für die Mönche.

Außerdem würde ich die Mönche auch etwas stärker gegen Pfeile und Armbrüste machen, da sie sonst meiner Meinung nach absolut nutzlos sind (außer für Notverteidigung) und der Abt extrem leicht ausgespielt werden kann. Im Gegenzug könnte man ja die Kosten für Mönche etwas erhöhen.

English:

I have an idea how to improve spearmen and monks.

Their running when one selects an agressive stance should be standart behavior. For example, if you select a target that you want to attack, they could close in on their target at normal walking speed and if they are close enough they should automatically start running (maybe when it's possible to see both them and their target on the screen). That would make Phillip and the Abbot stronger and the units in general more useful for something like castle breaches.

I would also increase the arrow and crossbow-bolt resistance of the monks, since it's possible to completely outplay the Abbot with just a bunch of archers and they are completely useless as units except for maybe emergency castle defense. They could be made more expensive though to equalize it.

[ByBurton]

Why buff monks? They are good as they are. They do not require a weapon, and are probably meant to be as strong or slightly better than spearmen. They are a cheap unit.

[Wolfram92]

Well, they have almost zero offensive capabilities, as they can be picked of from a distance and are even slower then spearmen.

I also think that the aggressive stance is useless as it is, since they only start running when enemies are very close by and one can't even select a preferred target. The same goes for spearmen.

So a slight increase in resitance and speed would make sense I think, and therefore they could be made a bit more expensive.

It would be a selectable option in the patch anyway, and I would like to see every unit to be at least useful enough to use them (instead of using swordsmen, knights, etc. all the time).

Spearmen and monks are just useful for mass spamming and maybe castle defense, although spearmen are at least capable of filling moats and they walk a bit faster.

[Panbutt]

I think the speed change is interesting. It's exactly what macemen do, sometimes they'll walk to their destination or target but once they get to a certain distance they break into a run. Spearmen and Monks are swarm units like Macemen, it makes sense they have similar movement behavior and they have the animations for it.

[PitchNeeded]

Yes this sounds good, but spearmen have already been improved in the patch, so we don't want to make them too strong for their low cost (and I don't want spearmen to cost more as that wouldn't be good for Rat's economy/ability to attack).

[Wolfram92]

Well, like I said, I guess it would be optional and it would also improve the rats attack.

Maybe Showdown could enable two options (resistance and speed) for those people who would like iz. In my opionion spearmen are still useless as units and like Panbutt said it would make sense if they have the ability to run, since they are swarm units.

I also wouldn't increase their cost at all, despite improving them because they are still way to weak from my point of view. I tried playing a match with my main forces being Archers and Spearmen and it turned out that even with 150 Spearmen at once that they all die when trying to storm a well defended castle of Saladin or the Wolf. I would like to see them as a viable alternative to heavy units which is more cost effective in great numbers (hence not increasing their cost in the patch)

[Heroesflorian]

Speaking of that, though, 150 spearmen is not particularly many (imho). Against good mod-AIVs, or pitch ditch lovers like the Caliph, the same number of macemen or even swordsmen is not enough either.

[Wolfram92]

In my experience it is quite easy to storm a castle like that of the Caliph with a couple of swordsmen and pikeneers (like 20-30) and a bunch of knights (to ignite the pitch) since once there is no danger of fire they are virtually invulnerable to arrows and they can deal with Arab swordsmen and assassins quite easily.

I never tried attacking with 500-1000 spearmen because I'm still somewhat used to the old troop limits.

To be honest though I don't think that the speed increase would make spearmen (and monks for that matter) op though, it would just give them a slight edge, And it could make a rat more dangerous, especially playing against a couple of rats whilst having an economic disadvantage could prove more challenging; I'm thinking of the Crusader Trail mission where you have to fight 4 rats at once, which becomes a walk in the park once you put a bunch of archers on the hill near the river.

[Heroesflorian]

In my experience it is quite easy to storm a castle like that of the Caliph with a couple of swordsmen and pikeneers (like 20-30) and a bunch of knights (to ignite the pitch) since once there is no danger of fire they are virtually invulnerable to arrows and they can deal with Arab swordsmen and assassins quite easily.

Caliph doesn't have assassins though - but those perform considerably better (especially in terms of effectiveness per gold cost) than Arabian swordsmen when fighting their European counterparts. Anyway, usually there's a lot more fire than just the pitch ditches, though - fire throwers, oil pots, fire ballistae. And potentially a nearly full attack army on top of that. I really doubt you get very far with 30 pikemen or swordsmen, unless you used tons of catapults or ranged units to clear the way beforehand.

Anyway, I wouldn't oppose a non-aggressive-mode charge mechanic in a small radius nearby hostile units if it is doable.

Just a reminder though, their much-higher walking speed compared to swordsmen already is even less realistic than their low resistance to protectiles... and thus, giving them even more resistance (their defense already got buffed after all) in addition to the charging is something I do not think would be still balanced. In terms of realism, a larger attack range and/or a bit more attack damage would be the better choice to buff them. As a weapon, the spear is not generally inferior compared to a sword (in formations, it is even superior!). But in terms of armour / protection, thick cloth is clearly inferior compared to a full plate armour with padding underneath. And, sure, that would still leave them vulnerable to arrows - but that's what cheap, fast, unarmoured swarming units are for: They are vulnerable alone, but when comming in masses, they can overwhelm you with all those dangerously long and pointy spears.

Also, let's not forget some other improvement suggestions, such as the AI using portable shields, using their attack archers in greater numbers and in more intelligent ways, more siege engines to really make a dent in hostile defenses, less suicidal waiting-in-hostile-archer-range. All those things, combined with potential stacking benefits for charging spearmen/monks, will already make them a lot more effective.

If someone does attack a heavily fortified defense with just spearmen or monks, I really do not want them to overrun the defense single-handedly, or a new age of zerg rushing might turn Crusader on its head. And e.g. for the Abbot, he can use archers already (and even tends to use more of them than e.g. Richard), and if you ask me, having a few more archers in later attacks (rather than increasing just monk numbers alone), as well as using them properly (i.e. not waiting idly behind the army while the monks die...) would already make the same amount of monks considerably more effective.

Also, in terms of gameplay variety, the more tanky and possibly expensive weaker units such as monks and spearmen get, the less difference is there at all between the different melee unit types in Crusader, which makes them all more redundant altogether. The main reason why in the past the "elite units" (pikemen, knights, swordsmen) were so dominant is that, despite being considerably more expensive, it is still possible to gather a huge army of those units. But that requires a solid economy that is properly defended and large enough to fund expensive troops - which is something that only the stronger AI characters have.

[Wolfram92]

I used assassins and arabian swordsmen as an example, since these are the only melee units capable of engaging European units like swordsmen or macemen.

In my opinion tinkering with every aspect of units in terms of realism is even more difficult to implement because it would require changing every unit in relation to each other.

For example, pikemen then should have a bonus against knights (since they were used against mounted soldiers historically). And they shouldn't be called pikemen anyway but halberdiers and they probably do not fit the setting timewise (although I'm not that much of a history buff tbh).

I also noted that the behavior of macemen changes depending on the game mode. They'll walk and break into a run while attacking in every mode except for Skirmish, where they will always run. Macemen being able to run from one end of the map to another is also a bit exaggerated but I guess Firefly wanted they player to have a fast and heavy hitting unit for castle storming and therefore decreased realism to keep the gameplay during Skirmish fast and intense.

Spearmen are presumably wearing protective cloths (maybe a padded jacket/gambeson?) but the game is not clear about that. Regarding monks, I always thought they were just slow because they are pretty fat but it could also be due to some kind of protective clothing.

Additionally, it doesn't make sense that monks are so much stronger then spearmen in melee because spearmen are trained soldiers from the barracks while monks are just fat dudes with wooden sticks. But changing the offensive abilities from units according to their historical role, in game behavior and depending on which units they are fighting sounds pretty complicated and requires very careful trial and error to do correctly (Showdown knows that better than me). Letting spearmen and monks run is already a part of the game and I guess changing that would be quite easy.

I would suggest adding enhanced speed and resistance as two different options and then people can report their experience with it and how it affects gameplay.

I agree that zerg rushing with cheap units could be a problem in Multiplayer but I never play online so I don't know much about it. The gameplay I saw on Youtube looks pretty insane to me though and I guess I would get tanked immediately (building monstrous castles, gigantic economies and well, zerg rushing the opponent). As far as I understood people playing online would have to agree on the terms beforehand anyway (like better spearmen etc.) or otherwise Multiplayer won't work.

I think at the moment spearmen are already resistant enough and for monks, well, I think they could be a bit more durable although its not an absolute necessity from my POV.

But letting them charge at enemy units is something which I would definitly like to see in the game.

[Heroesflorian]

I agree with most of those points. Though, regarding the relative strength of spearmen and monks: I already suggested, spearmen could be a bit stronger in terms of their damage output, which would also allow them to "stand up" against monks better.

But also, spearmen were very "cheap" and quick to train, you essentially just picked new recruits (peasants), gave them a spear (i.e. pointy stick) and told them to hold it in front of them and standing in a line together. Yet, such "peasant armies", with a bit of training, proved quite effective against cavalry and looking e.g. at medieval Switzerland, they fended off a few considerably more expensive and "superior" / professional armies that way. Compare that to e.g. archers, who needed a lot more of additional training (unless they already were experienced "hunter archers" anyway), and also needed ~just as much if not~ more physical strength, to pull heavy warbows - let alone the training that a knight would have -, and the "spearmen are trained professionals" argument kinda falls apart mostly.

On the other hand, for monks with their sticks: Especially (but not only) in England, the quarterstaff (and staffs in general) had quite some popularity as a weapon (especially for "civilians"). And essentially staffs just lack the "pointy bit" at the tip compared to traditional spears, but they still outrange swords, have speed and leverage advantages similar to spears, and can have metal-capped ends for more durability and "bang". Experienced staff wielders can do quite a lot of damage to opponents with no or little armour, and can definitely defend themselves adequately against e.g. sword users, similarly as with a spear. As it is mostly "blunt damage", padding helps (same for maces - and even, to some extent, swords btw), but unlike for "cutting damage" (e.g. swords) even metal armour without much padding underneath doesn't give you full protection (which is also why maces are good against heavily armoured opponents). So, all in all, one really should not underestimate staffs. And there are some historical weapon treatises for staffs as well, similar to those for other weapons, as far as I know.

Now, regarding the physical condition (independent of weapon choice), I agree the Stronghold/Crusader monks look like they had more beer than training, but then again that probably is mainly for stylistic reasons, and not necessarily fully accurate. And sure, the average peasant-soldier might be slightly more agile than the average monk-warrior, but peasants weren't always well-fed and in ideal physical base-condition, and monks also had some regular physical work to do, usually. And generally, while more... "voluminous" people (who still do some physical activities in their daily life, unlike a few lazy-ass rich Lords or Bishops) might tend to walk slower and get tired more quickly, they can still hit rather hard in the first place (more mass and energy behind every hit), when they hit. And dodging in melee combat generally isn't part of the Stronghold combat system anyway: There, the best-trained and equipped troops walk sluggishly slow, cannot even do a short charging sprint, cannot evade hits or block (nullify) damage with their superior skills, cannot land critical hits. And polearm wielders have no additional reach. etc...

Also, keep in mind woodcutters or blacksmiths can easily kill a couple slaves (even when attacking simultaneously as a group), and even quarry workers can kill them... and even kill slingers or archers in melee combat - and this despite archers usually having equal or superior training and physical condition compared to spearmen, and realistically also having a sword as backup weapon.

Thus, having those warrior monks be of similar strength to spearmen is basically okay for me, and even if spearmen realistically would probably perform better, the relative strength of monks and spearmen is probably near the lower end of "this doesn't make sense" issues in the game's balancing.