RS II: Questions, Suggestions & Discussion

[Ferdiad]

You're forgetting the fear factor, a wall of charging horses was a terrible thing for anyone to face.

[Andrew1994]

What about the other 2;

[Ferdiad]

1.EDUs are save game compatible.
2.I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Andrew1994]

ok forget about nummer 2
I just dont like the fact that i always have to wait a long time for the battles to complete
For example when 2 identical units collide the casualties are so few and you must w8 for a long time.Also the charge(infantry units) is almost useless because always the casualties caused from it are so few.

So what do those edu offer;They make upkeep higher so there are less stacks,lower the stats; I just want to know before i use one of them

[RZZZA]

But why? That sort of 'research unlocking' is a feature of many poor 'games', which seem to want to reward the player by playing and searching for the ever better 'upgrade'.

Such a thing, however, has nothing to do with 'historical reality' which RSII seeks to simulate.

For about 1,000 years nothing much changed during the ancient period, merely little tweaks here and there. There is nothing to compare to the 200 years from 1750-1950 when we went from primitive muzzle-loaders to rapid-fire automatic weapons, missiles and nuclear bombs!

But why? Well I just think it's a good gameplay mechanic. It may not be historically accurate but imo its good to reward the player with little advancements, they give him goals to strive for and make him want to keep playing.

I'm speaking only for myself though. I know I liked having to wait 20 turns to build that citadel so I could unlock the 3rd tier buildings to get those elite units down the road. It gave me a bit of satisfaction to know that I focused my tech advancement towards one path to get elite units before any of the AI factions to give myself a temporary advantage.

[Drowsy]

But why? Well I just think it's a good gameplay mechanic. It may not be historically accurate but imo its good to reward the player with little advancements, they give him goals to strive for and make him want to keep playing.

I'm speaking only for myself though. I know I liked having to wait 20 turns to build that citadel so I could unlock the 3rd tier buildings to get those elite units down the road. It gave me a bit of satisfaction to know that I focused my tech advancement towards one path to get elite units before any of the AI factions to give myself a temporary advantage.

Give Rome a try, trigger the reform in historical fashion and getting the top level barracks will take a few hundred years

[ur-Lord Tedric]

You're forgetting the fear factor, a wall of charging horses was a terrible thing for anyone to face.

No, I promise you I'm not. Even well trained horses don't want to charge home on to an equal wall of sharp pointy things. Horses, unless specifically trained to do so (the very unusual and highly-trained war-horse of a very few medieval knights), they won't even step on a man.

A professional and steady body of formed troops has little to fear from horses. It's also another reason, btw, that I've argued against many of the troops having the 'fear factor' as part of their ability.

If and when cavalry (with either spears or long swords) can indeed break in to infantry, for whatever reason, then that's when things fall apart - and the cavalry are best used to run down fleeing infantry. This, in another btw, is one of the reasons there tends to be such disparity between loss ratios between victor and vanquished and goes a long way to understanding the margins often seen in Roman texts.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

But why? Well I just think it's a good gameplay mechanic. It may not be historically accurate but imo its good to reward the player with little advancements, they give him goals to strive for and make him want to keep playing...........

Ahh, I see, you're talking about 'entertainment' - not a 'simulation game' that pits the ability of the player against the AI, or better and if only it were possible, other player(s).

[Ferdiad]

No, I promise you I'm not. Even well trained horses don't want to charge home on to an equal wall of sharp pointy things. Horses, unless specifically trained to do so (the very unusual and highly-trained war-horse of a very few medieval knights), they won't even step on a man.

A professional and steady body of formed troops has little to fear from horses. It's also another reason, btw, that I've argued against many of the troops having the 'fear factor' as part of their ability.

If and when cavalry (with either spears or long swords) can indeed break in to infantry, for whatever reason, then that's when things fall apart - and the cavalry are best used to run down fleeing infantry. This, in another btw, is one of the reasons there tends to be such disparity between loss ratios between victor and vanquished and goes a long way to understanding the margins often seen in Roman texts.

None of that matters, the perception of the Charge and how deadly the horse was in charging was enough.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

None of that matters, the perception of the Charge and how deadly the horse was in charging was enough.

Waterloo - British infantry squares against the best heavy cavalry in the world?

Or perhaps you'd prefer Xenophon's retreat from the same Parthian HA & Cataphracts that later beat up poor old Crassus?

[Ferdiad]

I'd put them down to Tactics or the failure of it.

[Drowsy]

If i changed some values to the background script in the ::Add money:: section for the slave people would that make overall expansion slower for all factions?

monitor_event FactionTurnStart FactionType slave
and not FactionIsLocal
and Treasury < 30000
console_command add_money slave, 20000
end_monitor

monitor_event FactionTurnEnd FactionType slave
and not FactionIsLocal
and Treasury < 30000
console_command add_money slave, 20000
end_monitor

[5th Lieutenant]

Waterloo - British infantry squares against the best heavy cavalry in the world?

Or perhaps you'd prefer Xenophon's retreat from the same Parthian HA & Cataphracts that later beat up poor old Crassus

IIRC, Keegan's Face of Battle discusses this in some length. You also have a disparity in the man / pointy thing to horse ratio so one cavalryman will be facing 8 to 10 infantrymen / pointy things if the infantry remain formed.

Despite the obvious temptation to run away, infantry have tended to remain formed in the face of cavalry for various reasons. What cavalry do achieve, however, is the corralling of infantry so they can be targeted by ranged units or remain inefficiently deployed to fight other infantry. Once sufficiently distracted or attrited, the cavalry might try charging. Unfortunately, RTW's AI rarely seems subtle enough to manage this but as the human player you can force the AI to dance to your tune through ‘worrying’ but not it engaging with cavalry.

[Gorezin]

Hello everyone,

i wanted to know if there is a way to play secondary factions campaigns (capua, syracusa, bosporus etc) with the 1-turn system?
I really want to play capua but i'm not at ease with the 0 turn system, especially so close to ROME. Or if you have any tips to start this campaign, i'll be glad to hear them.

[Ferdiad]

If i changed some values to the background script in the ::Add money:: section for the slave people would that make overall expansion slower for all factions?

Well I can't recall if the RS II factions actually ever ran out of money in the first place, if not then the script is pointless.

[Drowsy]

Well I can't recall if the RS II factions actually ever ran out of money in the first place, if not then the script is pointless.

Is there any way to make the free people strong? Like increase their amount of stacks and make them have gold chev units? Certain games the AI explodes and u have huge empires after 2 decades, other games the free people seem to be doing much better, trying to determine what causes this. There has to be a better way then recruiting 50 spies and crippling every AI alive with the plague in a effort to slow the game down.

[Andrew1994]

Another sugestion is to remove the ability from the AI to built their elite barracks in every single city.It is just redicilous cause now i only face elite stacks from barbarians,carthage etc.Just make it available to the most important cities not all of them

[Numring]

I noticed that I loose about 40% of my income if I don't set the tax rate to very high and let the faction leader stay in my capital - even if I move a governor with higher management into the city, he still is not nearly as good as the faction leader. Of course this results in a real hit for my income when the FL dies - could anyone explain this? Since I it bothers me quite a bit

And I'd also like to know if there's any way to reduce the amount of soldiers dying in a battle. As for now, one simply can't win a battle with even odds without loosing 15 to 20 percent of the army. This forces the player to replenish an army after about two battles which again makes it almost impossible to have "real" campaigns where you would give one general a well-trained army which he then can use in many battles on a long campaign. Think of Scipio's campaigns in Iberia, it would be great to be able to fight in foreign territory without having to send new units with thousands of ships from rome to the army.
Of course that's just a thought but i'd like to hear what you think of that.

[Drowsy]

I noticed that I loose about 40% of my income if I don't set the tax rate to very high and let the faction leader stay in my capital - even if I move a governor with higher management into the city, he still is not nearly as good as the faction leader. Of course this results in a real hit for my income when the FL dies - could anyone explain this? Since I it bothers me quite a bit

And I'd also like to know if there's any way to reduce the amount of soldiers dying in a battle. As for now, one simply can't win a battle with even odds without loosing 15 to 20 percent of the army. This forces the player to replenish an army after about two battles which again makes it almost impossible to have "real" campaigns where you would give one general a well-trained army which he then can use in many battles on a long campaign. Think of Scipio's campaigns in Iberia, it would be great to be able to fight in foreign territory without having to send new units with thousands of ships from rome to the army.
Of course that's just a thought but i'd like to hear what you think of that.

It helps to stop thinking of a single stack as a legion If a single assault stack contains a general, archers, skirmishers, cavalry & legionaries have it accompanied by 2-3 more stacks with 'backup' units & tribunes.

If i invade a large region i usually take a full stack of legionaries sometimes two, one stack of archers, another stack of cavalry etc etc and then form armies when battle is offered, merging them back together afterwards, allows them to operate for a long time and it's easy to notice when reinforcements are required to be send from Rome.

[illerkiller]

Is there a way to change the hoplite animation to that of a "normal" spearmen? For instance changing the Pergamon hoplites battle animation to that of Triarii or Late Lybian Spearmen.
This is mostly to see if it has any impact on the annoying "hoplites not obeying orders properly" bug.