Me too, hatamoto was one of my favorite troops to roll on.QuadrupoleStrat wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 10:21 am I agree for hatamoto, his 3 speed doesn't make him unique anymore. To be honest, im quite disappointed with the nerfed hatamoto. I don't use it anymore.
yeh immortal cost 5 at castle is pretty pity to be trained right now. It need a
Samurai swords/Katanas aren't the best, their the weakest.Moh556 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 12:31 pm We must see what weapons warriors was using...
Immortal spear parts was golden!
Samurai sword was and is the best weapon!
Longsword was a destroyer sword!
About romans Gladius ...
If this implemented ..players start using these units too and by this way players will say : oh let me make hatamoto and etc too to fight beside shield units that all make
And we will see all units variety in game
AoF Dev Co-Leadermakazuwr32 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
No, you need to think more.
Obviously we can only see if endru will agree but I'll just tell my views.QuadrupoleStrat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:01 am Yes. Why the heck do they not have a pilum as a secondary weapon? Legionnares used them in formation, why not add it?? i definetly agree that legionnare is most likely prefered a 3 turn unit. Its stats does not live up to its image and historical characteristics in my opinion. Too weak in the game. Praetorian only has the pilum. Whattt??
Templars and foot knights are already strong.Moh556 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 7:49 am Hey
i checked some units in aos and isaw they are not good as before
For example hatamoto .. it was a fearsome unit but now when bonus decreased no one makes it in barracks ..
when they be like this .. people dont make the units that we worked hard to put in game ...
take a look at weakness of untits like ..romans .. immortals..japanise .. foot knights and templar...against a shielder unit like praetorian or spartan
Plz fix them if its ok
Where did you get future info?QuadrupoleStrat wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 10:21 am I agree for hatamoto, his 3 speed doesn't make him unique anymore. To be honest, im quite disappointed with the nerfed hatamoto. I don't use it anymore.
Look how much damage templar gets from hoplite. And it can heal!Moh556 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 12:52 pm imean these units bonuses decrases(against foot units)
For example when a upgraded templar hits a hoplite .. deals 3 or4 dmg
So what will be the point of making templar and etc..
All make hoplite and praetorian
just think about units like immortal .. hatamoto... and knights.. why they must be weak..
Their weapons is katana! Long sword! Persian spear!
even cavalries cant deal good dmg to armored units
For fixing it i suggest we increase some units bonuses against armored units
The units that need this fix
Celtic warior
Immortal
Roman legion
Food knight
Spahi
Templar
Hatamoto
Foot knight
Knight and its upgrades
Mace man
They have highest damage among all foot units.QuadrupoleStrat wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 3:26 pm Agreed for immortal, they are weak, very weak. Despite being a castle unit.
And the best answer award goes to makazuwr32.makazuwr32 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:31 am Katanas are made for cutting while swords for chopping.
Katanas work extremly well against unarmored and light armored units as well as against thin wood.
Swords on the other hand work better against chainmails and plate mails (alas maces and other blunt weapons work even better).
Another problem for katanas vs any metal armor is their lightness. They usually are lighter than swords and thus can't give same impact and cut through armor as swords.
It is not correct to compare these 2 types of melee weapons directly.
That is comparison of endgame stats.StormSaint373 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:44 am I'll agree that some units do indeed seem underused...
A 4 turn cost dismounted knight sees more battle time vice a roman legionary with same cost, same bonuses and lower stats...
Taking smithing vice legion training...
Smithing is extended to all basic unit adding +2 to attack, armor, etc
Legion training adds +1 armor per legionary standing next to him. (This affects only legionary and praetorian . . . And is only researchable in roman garrison)
Also note: romans don't receive unit upgrades like all other cultures, like japan or birds
So att/armor comes to about...
Dismounted knight: 14+2 att, 6+2 armor, 4+2 p armor
Legionary: 10 att, 3+ 4 armor (max), 2+4 armor (max) in moving formation
Do the math and tell me which soldier you would prefer to take into battle...
The Roman Sagittarius faces a similar disparity...
Cost 3 Archer (maxed out with associated buffs)
Att: 6,(gets maybe +2 att when near a centurian), rng 5
Cost 2 archer (maxed out)
Att: 7 (+2 smithing), rng 6 (+2 smithing)
Same bonuses
Now, think about which one you want to use in battle...
Praetorian Guard is just cool name found for what this unit was supposed to be - more elite legionary.QuadrupoleStrat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:50 am The dismounted knights are strong enough even without the aura and stuff the roman units has. Leggionare needs a 6 turn centurion to be effective it's base stats are inferior when compared to its counterpart the dismounted knight.Why does the legion need supervising anyway? Aren't they already elite? espescially the Praetorian Guard which Guards the higher ups.
To deal with that and not destroy whole balance, maybe a tech changing cost of production could be made - I am not sure.DreJaDe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:56 am I think most players could agree that making legionaries a three turn unit is one the best way to balance it. Unless they have pilum I don't think of them as a 4 turn at all.
Their shield tech is almost useless if you can't even mass produce them in the first place. Their aux troop is random and can only be trained through a pricy barracks, meaning that mass producin the legionaries while the aux is screening isnt possible
I think this is already been talked about though.
Yes i meant that one, thrusting.Endru1241 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 5:52 pmTemplars and foot knights are already strong.Moh556 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 7:49 am Hey
i checked some units in aos and isaw they are not good as before
For example hatamoto .. it was a fearsome unit but now when bonus decreased no one makes it in barracks ..
when they be like this .. people dont make the units that we worked hard to put in game ...
take a look at weakness of untits like ..romans .. immortals..japanise .. foot knights and templar...against a shielder unit like praetorian or spartan
Plz fix them if its ok
Japanese units are very good too.
Especially hatamoto - it's the best building/siege destroyer there is and it can stand it's ground against many other units.
You may remember hatamoto before nerfing it's bonuses to all foot units (it had +50% or +100%!), but then it was downright OP.
It still is too good comparing to other medium infantry and maybe it will get another nerf.
All those units cannot damage heavy infantry effectively, because heavy infantry role is standing ground against other infantry.Where did you get future info?QuadrupoleStrat wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 10:21 am I agree for hatamoto, his 3 speed doesn't make him unique anymore. To be honest, im quite disappointed with the nerfed hatamoto. I don't use it anymore.
I am only considering changing his speed to 3.
He still has 4.Look how much damage templar gets from hoplite. And it can heal!Moh556 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 12:52 pm imean these units bonuses decrases(against foot units)
For example when a upgraded templar hits a hoplite .. deals 3 or4 dmg
So what will be the point of making templar and etc..
All make hoplite and praetorian
just think about units like immortal .. hatamoto... and knights.. why they must be weak..
Their weapons is katana! Long sword! Persian spear!
even cavalries cant deal good dmg to armored units
For fixing it i suggest we increase some units bonuses against armored units
The units that need this fix
Celtic warior
Immortal
Roman legion
Food knight
Spahi
Templar
Hatamoto
Foot knight
Knight and its upgrades
Mace man
Celts deal 12 damage to Hoplite,16 with warpaint. Of course - they die doing it, but 2 celts can eliminate 6 turn unit.
Immortal has highest damage among all units with bonus against all foot units - it doesn't need more. It's rather the defense that he is lacking.
Legionaries are another topic - they are too weak on endgame, but making them anti-heavy suddenly is not a good idea.
Regular knight deals 7, heavy - 10, cavalier - 13. It becomes 16 after full blacksmith. Meanwhile having enough hp to defend effectively against it.
Spahi deals more damage than most other cavalry - 12. 16 after full blacksmith. And it doesn't even specialize in attacks vs. heavy infantry.
Maceman already deals base 24 damage, 28 as an upgrade, 32 with max blacksmith - proposing any increase is absurd. Maceman is specialized counter for heavy infantry and no other unit will deal more.
As for the rest - they are very strong in their respective fields.They have highest damage among all foot units.QuadrupoleStrat wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 3:26 pm Agreed for immortal, they are weak, very weak. Despite being a castle unit.
And +25% vs all foot melee.
I would call them very weak, just somewhat inadequate for a castle unit.
I had a plan to remove their transformation and just give shoot ability.
Maybe they also need some more melee armor.And the best answer award goes to makazuwr32.makazuwr32 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:31 am Katanas are made for cutting while swords for chopping.
Katanas work extremly well against unarmored and light armored units as well as against thin wood.
Swords on the other hand work better against chainmails and plate mails (alas maces and other blunt weapons work even better).
Another problem for katanas vs any metal armor is their lightness. They usually are lighter than swords and thus can't give same impact and cut through armor as swords.
It is not correct to compare these 2 types of melee weapons directly.
But swords were more of a thursting weapon - I am sure it's just a mistake on your part.
Chopping is the horizontal swing movement. As we all know best chopping weapons (apart of polearms) would be axe, when counting destructive force given by the same weight of weapon.
One other little misconception - common katana is 1.4 kg, common longsword 1.0-1.5 (depending on the period).
Lack of impact force was actually the conscious decision of japanese swordsman - while katana has sharper and harder blade, it was also less resistant to blunt force. Additionally pricier and much more difficult to repair if damaged, while longsword has relatively soft outer part, that can be easily and cheaply repaired and sharpened (as long as hard core was not broken).
The differences in physical parameters of those two weapons makes all the other things you say true.
AoF Dev Co-Leadermakazuwr32 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
Ah, of course - you write about the lands of Rus.makazuwr32 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:01 pmYes i meant that one, thrusting.And the best answer award goes to makazuwr32.makazuwr32 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:31 am Katanas are made for cutting while swords for chopping.
Katanas work extremly well against unarmored and light armored units as well as against thin wood.
Swords on the other hand work better against chainmails and plate mails (alas maces and other blunt weapons work even better).
Another problem for katanas vs any metal armor is their lightness. They usually are lighter than swords and thus can't give same impact and cut through armor as swords.
It is not correct to compare these 2 types of melee weapons directly.
But swords were more of a thursting weapon - I am sure it's just a mistake on your part.
Chopping is the horizontal swing movement. As we all know best chopping weapons (apart of polearms) would be axe, when counting destructive force given by the same weight of weapon.
One other little misconception - common katana is 1.4 kg, common longsword 1.0-1.5 (depending on the period).
Lack of impact force was actually the conscious decision of japanese swordsman - while katana has sharper and harder blade, it was also less resistant to blunt force. Additionally pricier and much more difficult to repair if damaged, while longsword has relatively soft outer part, that can be easily and cheaply repaired and sharpened (as long as hard core was not broken).
The differences in physical parameters of those two weapons makes all the other things you say true.
1-h swords actually in russia were between 0.8-2.5 kg and most of times more than 1.5 kg during 980-1280 years. After they began making lighter swords to swing easier.
Of course fighting styles were different, but that comes from the core of difference.Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:15 pm
i have only one comment on sword vs katana thing: they are not only sword physical properties that count, katana weilders were much more skilled and faster in armor-n-sword-users
- So a katana holder hand was much faster and much accurate than any medieval sword holder - they could almost dance around an armored enemy imho.
so i think almost always the katana users would win a skirmish by quickly-accurately-simply stabbing in open parts of armors like "necks" - and no sword can dodge a katana thrust/stab, swords were too heavy to compete or fast to dodge it.
this is my humble thought - i can be wrong - i have not read about it on internet - it was based on my memories by reading eg. "Shogun" book, and watching movies like "last samurai"
Sabres actually became popular only when mongols came to Russia, after 1250 year. Before russian fighters (they were both mounted and foot, foot was begun using somewhere around second half of 11th century) used european-style swords and axes (vikings' influence and also this was effective way of fighting with south and east nomadic enemies).Endru1241 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:50 amAh, of course - you write about the lands of Rus.makazuwr32 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:01 pmYes i meant that one, thrusting.
And the best answer award goes to makazuwr32.
But swords were more of a thursting weapon - I am sure it's just a mistake on your part.
Chopping is the horizontal swing movement. As we all know best chopping weapons (apart of polearms) would be axe, when counting destructive force given by the same weight of weapon.
One other little misconception - common katana is 1.4 kg, common longsword 1.0-1.5 (depending on the period).
Lack of impact force was actually the conscious decision of japanese swordsman - while katana has sharper and harder blade, it was also less resistant to blunt force. Additionally pricier and much more difficult to repair if damaged, while longsword has relatively soft outer part, that can be easily and cheaply repaired and sharpened (as long as hard core was not broken).
The differences in physical parameters of those two weapons makes all the other things you say true.
1-h swords actually in russia were between 0.8-2.5 kg and most of times more than 1.5 kg during 980-1280 years. After they began making lighter swords to swing easier.
That changes much.
As far as I remember most fighters on those terrains were mounted forces to the core - they didn't dismount any part of the battle (unlike western knights and eastern samurai).
That means they could have used as a side arm (main sword/katana role) sabres instead of swords.
There were sabres with heavy, wide blade (look shamshir), so maybe they used something like that.
That would be quite effective as a chopping weapon and actually not very good thursting.Of course fighting styles were different, but that comes from the core of difference.Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:15 pm
i have only one comment on sword vs katana thing: they are not only sword physical properties that count, katana weilders were much more skilled and faster in armor-n-sword-users
- So a katana holder hand was much faster and much accurate than any medieval sword holder - they could almost dance around an armored enemy imho.
so i think almost always the katana users would win a skirmish by quickly-accurately-simply stabbing in open parts of armors like "necks" - and no sword can dodge a katana thrust/stab, swords were too heavy to compete or fast to dodge it.
this is my humble thought - i can be wrong - i have not read about it on internet - it was based on my memories by reading eg. "Shogun" book, and watching movies like "last samurai"
Katana should be classified as sabre (chinese dao), while western longsword is a sword (chinese jiang).
Chinese people were dubbing swords as martial arts king weapon. It could be used to perform any action, but often not as effectively as specialized weapons. Dao is specialized in slashing and chopping moves, sacrificing thurst ability.
As thursting motion is mainly used against armored enemies to maximize piercing of the armor it weren't as important if most battles were flighted against unarmoured or poorly armored enemies .
Katana further sacrifices chopping ability, because of hard blade, weak to blunt forces.
So it can be said that katana is strictly specialized slashing weapon with some limited thursting possibility.
But real difference in fighting styles comes from expected battles to use side weapons. Western European side arms were used in closed spaces - on stairs, in the corridors, inside gates, on walls (between battlements), on top of that mostly against armored enemies. So medium length universal weapon, that could be used to slash, thurst and chop was ideal. Style that came with it consisted of precise attacks against weaker parts of armor or unarmored flesh on fortunate moments between making full use of armor and shield. Very often it was group battles, having at least few allies on the sides.
Japanese sidearms mostly came into use at more open terrain, that prevented mounted battle (forests, mountains, building complexes) and even in buildings walls was paper or thin wood, so it didn't block slashes that much. Most enemies were poorly armored. On the other hand samurai had to count on being outnumbered (mostly by peasants). Thus specialized slashing weapon.
Classic kendo from medieval period were utilizing fast cuts vs multiple enemies, parrying strikes and sporadic use of dagger or short sword (e.g. tanto, wakizashi) against blocking enemies.
Katana physical properties also makes it need less power on strike to make proper cut, allowing even faster attacks.
Sabre type superiority on open fields and against unarmored body best evidence is increased usage and later total domination over swords in Europe since 16th century, when armor was disregarded because of firearms.
Btw. katana was mostly equivalent and sometimes even worse to middle east scimitars (damascus steel was superior to anything produced in japan, maybe apart of meteorite steel, which is exceedingly rare in the whole world) and they are very similar type of weapon.
AoF Dev Co-Leadermakazuwr32 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
