RS 2.6

[Ye Olde Fahrt]

i'll stick to this mod until RTWII is properly patched and available @ retail. and then, i'll still stick to this mod, because i don't think they'll get the same amount of historical exactitude in RTWII...

Could not have said it better myself! Hence the quote

[Visarion]

I will stick to this mod even after RTWII will be out!

[tungri_centurio]

yea me to actually,or rome 2 shoud be so awesome that i play no other games anymore

[tone]

Just a little update.

Real life has had a real effect on the ability of the key team members to work on this mod, but just to assure you that we are still working on things, just really slowly.

We're having a discussion at the moment about producing a mini patch to fix some glaring issues like the roman rebellion and elephants, as the whole thing has taken way longer than originally planned.

A lot of work has gone into economics, antisnowballing measures, one turn campaigns and further balancing to unit stats - we're currently trialling a new stat tweak that gives more value to armour and shields - it'll be interesting to see how this works out in reality but initial results are encouraging.

[the man, the myth, the legend]

Interesting...., thanks for the head up. Sounds great.

[Petite Wolf]

Thanks for the update =D. I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with ^_^.

[Elianus]

Could you please do something about the cavalry? A charging unit of heavy cavalry should annihilate a unit of archers and even if they find themselves in prolonged melee the cav should still have minimal losses.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Could you please do something about the cavalry? A charging unit of heavy cavalry should annihilate a unit of archers and even if they find themselves in prolonged melee the cav should still have minimal losses.

Cavalry! Again! HC do annihilate a unit of lightly armoured archers now, but I think you seriously underestimate how vulnerable a horse can be once cavalry is in a melée.

Why do I think that - because the acknowledged and historical tactic to deal with even cataphract cavalry was to engage them with Light Cavalry and Light Infantry! That the classic Germanic tactic to make their own cavalry more effective, was to mix it with Light Infantry, specifically to cope with the melée phase after the charge. Even the Early Republican Romans did the same.

Funnily enough - both these tactics work pretty well in RSII and I'm doing my bit to ensure such.

[Elianus]

Cavalry! Again! HC do annihilate a unit of lightly armoured archers now, but I think you seriously underestimate how vulnerable a horse can be once cavalry is in a melée.

Why do I think that - because the acknowledged and historical tactic to deal with even cataphract cavalry was to engage them with Light Cavalry and Light Infantry! That the classic Germanic tactic to make their own cavalry more effective, was to mix it with Light Infantry, specifically to cope with the melée phase after the charge. Even the Early Republican Romans did the same.

Funnily enough - both these tactics work pretty well in RSII and I'm doing my bit to ensure such.

I don't. I said nothing about light infantry or cavalry. I am talking about archers (which have no armour, no serious training in close combat and a very short blade). The archers should melt away instantly after the charge and even if they don't they should die like flies long before they manage to cause any casualties. I am describing something different than the situation you are describing (which btw I use and yes it is historical and realsitic).
Cohesive light infantry engaging static cavalry is way different from archers in loose formation taking a cavalry charge and still fighting.

[Rushwithoutmercy]

I don't. I said nothing about light infantry or cavalry. I am talking about archers (which have no armour, no serious training in close combat and a very short blade). The archers should melt away instantly after the charge and even if they don't they should die like flies long before they manage to cause any casualties. I am describing something different than the situation you are describing (which btw I use and yes it is historical and realsitic).
Cohesive light infantry engaging static cavalry is way different from archers in loose formation taking a cavalry charge and still fighting.

They do melt away.

Also, do not want vanilla.

[CrayonVonCaesar]

We're having a discussion at the moment about producing a mini patch to fix some glaring issues like the roman rebellion and elephants, as the whole thing has taken way longer than originally planned.
.

YES. Mini patch please.

[tone]

I don't. I said nothing about light infantry or cavalry. I am talking about archers (which have no armour, no serious training in close combat and a very short blade). The archers should melt away instantly after the charge and even if they don't they should die like flies long before they manage to cause any casualties. I am describing something different than the situation you are describing (which btw I use and yes it is historical and realsitic).
Cohesive light infantry engaging static cavalry is way different from archers in loose formation taking a cavalry charge and still fighting.

I think the effects of what we've done which is to make armour and shields of more significance will help ensure that. Basically in effect what has happened is that defence skill has remained the same, armour and shield values doubled and melee lethality increased significantly. The effect is that lightly armoured troops will die quicker than they did before. This will obviously apply to archers. It will also mean that the initial charge phase of units that have bigger charge will be more accentuated.

[GurneyMan]

Thanks Tone & crew. This game is so much fun.

Not sure if this is really the right thread or has been answered multiple times elsewhere but regarding armour and shields- is this a single stat applied to the unit or are there different values for each flank. It seems a rear attack doesn't have much of an effect on the attacked unit?

[tungri_centurio]

thanx for update tone,and what about loyalty? are you working on that to, i had lots of disloyal FM in my roman campaign before the rebelion even was close,lots of them had 2/3 loyalty even with medium tax and building alot off things in my citys. good luck with further dev

[Elianus]

They do melt away.

Also, do not want vanilla.

No, they don't. Several die when the charge takes place but they keep fighting for a short time.
Nobody wants vanilla

I think the effects of what we've done which is to make armour and shields of more significance will help ensure that. Basically in effect what has happened is that defence skill has remained the same, armour and shield values doubled and melee lethality increased significantly. The effect is that lightly armoured troops will die quicker than they did before. This will obviously apply to archers. It will also mean that the initial charge phase of units that have bigger charge will be more accentuated.

I like what I am reading. Thanks for the update!

[Sertorio]

Gurney Man,armour is applied in all situations, shield is applied for front left flank for missile and mellee, defence is applied to right front for mellee only. Those flanks might be in fact reversed. So on a rear atack, armour only is supposed to be acounted for. If you want to know about EDU look up for Aradan EDU guide on the workshop section. Its interesting.

[Love Mountain]

Question, won't this make arrows useless? I'm all for nerfing Horse Archers, but doubling the armor will pretty much murder any late game Missile play.

[Post Hoc]

Question, won't this make arrows useless? I'm all for nerfing Horse Archers, but doubling the armor will pretty much murder any late game Missile play.

not if they make arrows more lethal

[Love Mountain]

not if they make arrows more lethal

I'm unsure how lethality interacts with armor stats, especially if the missile attack stat is low compared to the armor stat. Can you explain please?

[Martialis]

Yes, a mini patch would be really cool. Please.