Page 46 of 48 FirstFirst ... 2136373839404142434445464748 LastLast
Results 901 to 920 of 943

Thread: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

  1. #901
    ferike_2007's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Terra Siculorum
    Posts
    289

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Hi Team, hi everybody,

    unfortunately I did not find posts about the second rebellion's {Civil War} rebel legions structure, so I ask if you planned to replace the N&N imperial legions with generic ones - I remember DVK wrote some time ago about this thread, but as I said I cannot find the related post(s). IMO the generic legions would fit better in the general image the game portraits about that timeframe. Anyway if you don't planned to replace N&N legions, maybe somebody could give me some hints to do it myself because I would like to replace them.

    Thanks in advance and keep up the great work!

  2. #902

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    I've argued for that many times with dvk' and the previous members - even in the relatively shorter time I've been involved.

    If the 2nd Rebellion (as it currently is) is supposed to be a concatenation of Marius/Sulla/Pompey - Caesar/Pompey - Octavian/Antony/Brutus/Cassius - Octavian/Antony - then yes, it should all be the Generic legions (and much easier for the AI to use and recruit naturally without eternal scripting).

    But the N&N are indeed introduced too early - and I love them too! Apparently people want to fight against them also, although I argued that even that might not be necessary.

    When it comes to future possible iterations of Loyalty and Rebellions - I haven't given up!
    "RTW/RS VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

    RSII 2.5/2.6 Tester and pesky irritant to the Team. Mucho praise for long suffering dvk'.

  3. #903

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    What's more amusing is they will get spawned for them the final form of legionaries even if you hadn't had marian reforms. Now after that, they can only recruit the standard Polybian-type units, but.. heh

  4. #904
    ferike_2007's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Terra Siculorum
    Posts
    289

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Spawning roman armies in non-roman campaigns have weird composition, indeed.
    I also noticed the fact - even I did not played too many non-roman campaigns - that the Marian reforms there are triggered too early.
    A serious script reworking should be useful, however I know the 'Team' is far too small in these days.

    Quote Originally Posted by ur-Lord Tedric View Post
    I've argued for that many times with dvk' and the previous members - even in the relatively shorter time I've been involved.

    If the 2nd Rebellion (as it currently is) is supposed to be a concatenation of Marius/Sulla/Pompey - Caesar/Pompey - Octavian/Antony/Brutus/Cassius - Octavian/Antony - then yes, it should all be the Generic legions (and much easier for the AI to use and recruit naturally without eternal scripting).

    But the N&N are indeed introduced too early - and I love them too! Apparently people want to fight against them also, although I argued that even that might not be necessary.

    When it comes to future possible iterations of Loyalty and Rebellions - I haven't given up!
    Sure, people and me too loves the N&N legions, they are one from major factors which makes RS unique, but one can play in clever manner and could easily trigger events to get quasi-historical realism and in same time could enjoy the full scale of hard sensations this game provides.
    Agree with you - don't give up! And thanks for support!
    Last edited by ferike_2007; September 29, 2015 at 08:37 AM.

  5. #905

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Quote Originally Posted by ferike_2007 View Post
    ............ - that the Marian reforms there are triggered too early.
    A serious script reworking should be useful, however I know the 'Team' is far too small in these days................
    Agree with you - don't give up! And thanks for support!
    You're entirely welcome. I'll only correct you by noting that the Marian Reforms can be triggered extremely early - the real point being that it is entirely under the players control and I think that's just perfect - and the Later Team did have that discussion (and they probably had it before). One of the things that came out of it, was dvk's clever re-interpretation of the Generic 1st Cohort-naming from vanilla BI.

    The Mod as written can last some 300 years/600 turns. If a player wished to play to a quasi-historical timeline then those years can be roughly divided equally. You'd play as the Middle Republic with the Polybius' style legions of Citizen and Allied units and end with the destruction of Carthage and the establishment of Roman rule around the near Med'. Then you'd have the Marian Reforms at around 100 years in and the establishment of the 'permanent' (Generic) legions which would go on for another 100 years. This period would end with the 'Civil War', fought with those legions, and then you'd get the Imperial Reforms and the appearance of the 'Professional' legions (the N&N). And then you'd continue until the end - and the 'Later' legions would only appear towards that end.

    But the player is in control - and, as noted, I too love the N&N - and through all the testing I did can happily support that a sensible player (ie not rushing pell mell and ensuring the infrastructure is in place) can get the Marian Reforms after ~40 years and the Imperial another ~40 years later - giving them plenty of time to use the N&N for the ~100 years the campaign can be completed in - some ~100 early.

    So yes, the N&N can appear 'early', but that's the players choice.

    When it comes to what could be done in the future; I still hope to work with dvk' (and hopefully others) on two particular things as the meat of a future update. Being a Stats & Probability guy I saw what is 'wrong' the the current Traits System. For the Traits are just a wonderful and major flavour in RSII, but their triggering mechanics are currently based upon pure probability trees - with no constraints. And it's that latter bit that is needed.

    Secondly I would love to see the hugely scripted '2nd Rebellion' changed over to a, probably reworked Loyalty-based system. This would hopefully ensure that the player never knew when a small, or larger, rebellion could happen and that it could happen multiple times and not at a relatively fixed one. The most logical 'trigger' would be the death of a Faction Leader, but other ones can also be linked to the 'too successful General' example.

    M2CW
    "RTW/RS VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

    RSII 2.5/2.6 Tester and pesky irritant to the Team. Mucho praise for long suffering dvk'.

  6. #906
    dvk901's Avatar Consummatum est
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,984

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    I'm wondering if, in the short term, a satisfactory compromise on the Rebel Legion issue would be to leave the N&N Legions in the script as the spawned Legions, but then only allow the Roman Rebels to recruit the Generic ones?

    And yes, I am aware of the triggering issue with the traits system. In my earlier test install of various changes that I was experimenting with, I did a massive change in how almost all personality, non-combat and non-governing traits were triggered. The moment a character appeared on the scene, he would go through one and not more than two cycles where he would have a chance to be assigned a large variety of traits.....after that, the process would 'lock' the character down, and no other traits of that nature would be applied to him except for government or battle related ones.

    The problems I encountered, however, were that there are a number of ways characters appear in the game......you recruit them, they are offered for marriage, they come of age, or they are offered for adoption. Each one of these 'events' needs to have triggers for ALL of the various possibilities (trait-wise), and I discovered that all of the non-recruiting events had to be in a 'linear section' of the trigger section of the file, because the game goes through, for example, the 'OfferedForMarriage' event by finding the first one in the file, and then triggering each one in successive order until they end. So if there is a similar 'event' trigger that's 25 lines down in the file (with other triggers separating it from the first ones) the game will ignore\skip them. That's why some of these event triggers don't work right..or all the time, in the current setup. So.....this got to be a MAJOR issue, and I realized that I couldn't just throw this into a patch without having some people to more thoroughly test it first.

    Add to that that there are multiple versions of the EDCT.txt files for various campaigns and you have a complicated mess. Si it would probably be best to incorporate this later, and work on individual campaigns whilst integrating Loyalty.

    Creator of: "Ecce, Roma Surrectum....Behold, Rome Arises!"
    R.I.P. My Beloved Father

  7. #907

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Quote Originally Posted by ferike_2007 View Post
    I also noticed the fact - even I did not played too many non-roman campaigns - that the Marian reforms there are triggered too early.
    A serious script reworking should be useful, however I know the 'Team' is far too small in these days.
    Less of a script thing.

    The AI gets some serious population growth bonuses (use a spy and check out their governor's buildings sometime). And it is pretty fast to upgrade settlements to higher tiers. Taken together Akragas can become a Huge City pretty fast. Though if you're nearby, you can kill the Romans even faster. Especially if you're Carthage, Macedon etc...

    As for trait overload, well:

    Last edited by Alavaria; September 30, 2015 at 11:17 AM.

  8. #908
    Zipzopdippidybopbop's Avatar Barred from the Local
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    2,244

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Hi dvk; I'm glad to hear you are attempting to tackle the issue of Campaign AI (as it gets annoying quite fast ingame). Any luck with that yet?

  9. #909

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Did you find a way to fix that issue where the "land exploitation" line doesn't actually give you any mining income when built despite having gold etc and it showing a bonus on the building info?

    The game has it hardcoded such that "mining" only works for gold/silver, and only in the given mining line, not elsewhere...

  10. #910
    dvk901's Avatar Consummatum est
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,984

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Quote Originally Posted by Alavaria View Post
    Did you find a way to fix that issue where the "land exploitation" line doesn't actually give you any mining income when built despite having gold etc and it showing a bonus on the building info?

    The game has it hardcoded such that "mining" only works for gold/silver, and only in the given mining line, not elsewhere...
    Yes....I have replaced those bonuses with trade bonuses.

    Creator of: "Ecce, Roma Surrectum....Behold, Rome Arises!"
    R.I.P. My Beloved Father

  11. #911

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Heh, I just noticed the Healing Springs I can build as Scythia have the icon of the Age of Mythology Healing Springs god power. That's amusing.

    Though, you get a selection of monuments, but usually only one or two of them are really worth building. Wonder if that's similar for barbarians etc. So far I've noticed this for Sparta/Syracuse (greek) and now Scythia. Rome doesn't have them before reforms I think

  12. #912

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Something I realized after offering some suggestions for Tyblitz's Unit Browser.... I had forgotten that I made a set of changes to my EDU which seem to work well, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure it makes a big difference (hard to tell without extensive side-by-side comparisons that I haven't done), but it's something to consider at least for the sake of consistency. This might also help somewhat with "balance," for people who have issues with how powerful cavalry is -- although personally I think this is often overstated and don't worry much about it, and as I'll point out below it's not going to do anything like make all cavalry less powerful across the board.

    All of the infantry can be categorized as either sword-users (including other generic melee weapons), spears, pikes, and those with armor-piercing weapons. That of course applies to melee fighting for slingers, foot archers and foot skirmishers too -- count anything non-mounted as "infantry" for now. Here is the EDU guide for quick reference. The difference I'm pointing out is to be found in their stat_pri_attr or stat_sec_attr. The weapon_tech term in stat_pri or stat_sec is of course used for the various weapon upgrades via constructions in campaign mode. However, apparently the damage_type and sound_type terms don't determine anything about the effectiveness of the unit in combat.

    So, what I did was to give cavalry the same features as infantry, when they either do or don't have spears. When they had spears according to the EDU, I added the attributes light_spear, spear_bonus_4, since that is the minimal effect you can get that actually makes it functionally different from other weapons. According to the guide, this provides +4 attack and +8 defense vs. cavalry, as well as -4 def. vs. infantry.

    The spear bonus isn't functional without light_spear, fortunately, so together they basically cancel out to give +4 defense for cavalry vs. cavalry (when both wield spears), meaning such cavalry will simply take a little longer to determine the outcome, since both receive the bonus, compared to leaving things alone by making them use the default "swords" in the current official version of the mod. This could mean other units have a chance to enter into the fray before it's over, more time to escape from a dangerous situation, or it could mean a lot of things. Like I said, just to be utterly transparent, I haven't tested much of this to be sure how much of a difference it really makes (given the way I play, not much), but most of what follows is just a straightfoward (albeit vague) description of how the game mechanics work, which is the same for cavalry as for everything else.

    Next possibility: When one cavalry unit has spears and the other doesn't, the spear-wielders have an advantage, which seems entirely appropriate to me. They have a longer "reach" in melee with spears, so they can poke at horses or riders more easily, use them to deflect sword attacks, or however you like to think about it.

    Next: against infantry with spears/pikes, spear-wielding cavalry have -4 defense, and the infantry themselves have +4 attack and +8 defense (or more often, for heavier spearmen, their spear bonus is +6 attack). Thus, against spearmen they'll be at a bigger disadvantage than they are in the current mod. They also have a somewhat harder time against any other infantry, as long as they're using spears.

    The AI doesn't use secondary weapons intelligently, which is unfortunate. Cavalry get huge charge bonuses, using primary weapons (except HA and javelineers), then a short time later melee-only cavalry shift to secondaries. The player could of course opt to use secondary weapons from the start against infantry, which on the other hand means a consistently smaller charge bonus (but still a big one). And depending on the cavalry unit in question, either primaries or secondaries have a higher base attack, so there's nothing very general to say about whether it's better or worse for all cavalry -- you can only accurately talk about how this affects a specific unit given its unique profile of different stats.

    But, generally, they're a bit more vulnerable against infantry (and still very powerful) as they first charge in with spears, unless they charge from behind of course since their defense penalty won't matter a lot then. However, this effect goes away as they switch weapons (if they can do so), while their charge bonus also wears off, if they stay to fight it out (which the AI almost always does). On the one hand, this means melee-only cavalry will lose their defense bonuses against each other when switching to secondaries, so their battles don't last so much longer, as they would if you expected bonuses which remained active the whole time. In that case, it affects how the first portion of the fight tends to work, not the whole thing. On the other hand, that also means they will not suffer so greatly against infantry over a long grind, since both may switch fairly soon to non-spear secondaries (if they can), which will provide the default attack and defense values that a "sword" has.

    So, as I said, it doesn't make a drastic difference overall. It's mostly a wash, but it does make things a little more dynamic and in some sense gives the player a bit more control over how their units fight. It's another variable to play with. And, obviously, it means melee-only cavalry are more versatile in melee, much like hoplites are, because they can effectively duke it out against anybody. On the other hand, missile cavalry are not so versatile -- they will either be better suited to fighting in melee against cavalry or else against infantry, not equally good at both. Charging missile cavalry face-first into a line of infantry is not a great idea at all, with some exceptions, while others should be even more cautious around cataphracts for instance. (They're already going to get pummeled in a match like that, so that doesn't change much either, except that they'll probably rout a little sooner).

    To give a better a sense of how that works, here's a summary of all the cavalry units in the game (ignoring a few labels, like Ptolemaic/Pergamon Xystophoroi, if they're otherwise identical). I didn't have to come up with any of this myself -- these were determined based on what types of weapons the unit was already said to have in the EDU. The only thing I did was to make sure that actually has an effect on combat, just like it does for infantry, by adding light_spear and spear_bonus_4. Here it is:

    23 Horse Archers: 18 spears, 5 swords (78%, 22%)
    38 Javelin Cavalry: 27 spears, 8 swords, 3 AP (71%, 21%, 8%)
    51 Melee-only Cavalry: 37 spears/swords, 13 spears/AP, 1 AP-only (73%, 25%, 2%)

    Out of 112 total:
    45 - only spears in melee (40%, a large majority of missile cavalry)
    17 - no spears in melee (15%, a minority of missile cavalry, plus Nakharar)
    50 - combination of both spears and non-spears (45%, all melee-only cavalry except Nakharar)

    Of course, Nakharar are such a nice unit, that I don't think this should count for or against them in any situation. Their heavy armor and powerful armor-piercing weapon seems to be more than enough to outweigh the defense penalty against spear-wielding cavalry, especially the heaviest ones which at least stand a chance against them. But that's a unique unit only for Armenia, and it should be fairly clear what's going on in other cases. For the small number of melee-only cavalry with AP as a secondary, that's a bit more situational. I would say you can't really go wrong with armor-piercing weapons, but it's more complicated than that if you look at the full stats in different circumstances.

  13. #913

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Hi I'm new over here, I just like to make a suggestion if yu can do something about the music. There are some music pack that produce compatible problems with this fabulous mod
    example, this music pack
    http://www.romaguerratotal.com/nova/...pic.php?t=6020
    thanks

  14. #914
    isa0005's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Australia, Victoria, Melbourne
    Posts
    1,582

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    I know I've already posted this, but any news for us? How are things going? Hope the team is going well and hope things are progressing as smoothly as possible!

  15. #915

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Hmm, it's amusing to see that the Scythian Heavy cavalry (lance & axe) have a quiver as though they're gonna pull out a bow.

    It is possible (via the script) to "force" the AI Rome faction into marian reforms etc if they are getting owned by the player?

  16. #916

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Quote Originally Posted by Alavaria View Post
    .........
    It is possible (via the script) to "force" the AI Rome faction into marian reforms etc if they are getting owned by the player?
    Interestingly, this goes back to a point I've raised before. The actual stats between the Middle Imperial Republic - Late Republic (post-Marian) - Early Imperial - Late Imperial shouldn't really change that much at all. A tiny amount of +/- could be argued for flavour, but the troops and their arms and armour change very little indeed.
    "RTW/RS VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

    RSII 2.5/2.6 Tester and pesky irritant to the Team. Mucho praise for long suffering dvk'.

  17. #917

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Yeah the stats aren't really that different. It would at least help explain their amusing spam of script troops in a time when the roman citizenry are facing their imminent extermination (especially like when Roma and half of Italy have been "depopulated")

    Though it does lead to amusing outcomes if the player is Carthage and right off the bat is owning Romans left and right.
    Last edited by Alavaria; November 04, 2015 at 10:40 PM.

  18. #918

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    Would it be possible to add different unit sounds? Lets say we take some from Rome 2 or other TW titles if they make sense.
    Is that a modable area? Is it legal to use battle sounds and stuff like that from the other games?

  19. #919
    dvk901's Avatar Consummatum est
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,984

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    It is possible to modify all unit sounds, as long as the sound file is in .wav format. Unfortunately, the sounds in Rome2 are in a different format, and I'm not sure they can be converted.....or I should say, I just don't know. Using sounds from other games could get dicey....some allow it with credits, like from 0AD.

    Creator of: "Ecce, Roma Surrectum....Behold, Rome Arises!"
    R.I.P. My Beloved Father

  20. #920

    Default Re: RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

    If its a problem of converting, there are free programs that can do that to any format(both mp3 and wav should work).

    Rome 2 has mods that change the music to that of RTW and they dont seem to get into any trouble.Maybe it works both ways.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •