So thoughts on the Roman Scripts.

[romanius24]

Have you guys thought about making the Roman scripts optional?

Maybe someone else had better results but i think scripting Total War campaigns is a HUGE mistake.
Problems like that should just come natural and more random instead of having to experience the same thing over and over.


The first rebellion is actually an interesting idea, having to fight to keep the republic from breaking is actually fun but i think Hannibal's army should be the focus.
I spend more time dealing with lots of rebel armies while Hannibal either runs home or is to weak to do anything after a battle and is forgotten quick.

I think he should be made VERY strong, maybe increasing the experience of his troops and/or altering the army composition.
This way he would feel like a nearly unstoppable threat which forces the player to spend a lot of money and legions on.
The Rebels could be ingame from the start of the campaign which would weaken Rome but they should just be a secondary goal/potential income source in the war against Carthage.


The Cimbri Invasion didnt really work for me(i only tested it twice though), the armies just go home.
Even if it would work this event would just distract the player from other wars that happened naturally.


The 2nd rebellion is IMO the worst one.I have actually quit my campaign because it just felt ruined to me.
Losing 60-70% of an empire just isnt fun and neither is the fact that you have to conquer the same regions again.
It seems to me that this event just punishes the player for no reason and you cant do anything to stop it.
Conquering the same regions is also not as fun a second time because you are no longer interacting with other factions,fighting styles or cultures.


This rebellion is also interesting, it offers the player a challenge late into the campaign but in my campaign there was plenty of challenge already.
The idea of a civil war and internal conflict is very interesting (even vanilla had it) but those wars shouldnt be this massive.

It could be handled the same way as the 1st rebellion, it could be more of a distraction/nuisance for the player which might weaken the economy and indirectly affect real wars.

They could be something as simple as 3-4 legions spawning in a corner of your empire every now and then or 3-4 cities rebelling forcing you to deal with actual wars while also sending generals to keep the empire from breaking.
This would allow certain named legions to still be useful even though those provinces have been conquered long ago.
This 2nd rebellion should be changed into some sort of internal problems system which makes something happen in your empire every few years/turns/regions conquered.

I understand that some of this wouldnt be as realistic and that those scripts represent real events but IMO they do more harm than good and gameplay would be improved greatly.

[MacBlain]

I always play small factions, so I have no opinion on this specific point.

But I've always thought that short, focused scenarios could be cool if they were heavily scripted. Perhaps this would chafe less than having the "rules" of the grand strategic campaign profaned by the arbitrariness of the script.

It would be nice if the player could have an undying schismatic faction to deal with, which would inexorably increase in power as the game reaches its climax. I've never played any total war campaign past the point that I became the superpower. I'm thinking of the pterodactyls in Joust, the environmental fireballs in Mario Bros, and the ghost in Spelunky.

[LoGaL]

actually, the civil war back in vanilla was as big, if not even more, because the other two families steamrolled the rest of the world
at one point , you had to deal almost exclusively with romans

[romanius24]

That is true.But that was the planned endgame/late game of vanilla.
RS2's endgame could always be different depending on what factions survive and become superpowers.
All factions are very detailed, balanced and complex. In vanilla the Romans were clearly the main faction and they were OP.

[meerkatology]

def agree that hannibal is superweak. even on h/h , u can easily beat him on turn 0.

the game should start out with him controlling >half of italy and multiple stacks their, requiring you to take italy back from him. i think at some point rome was the only city that romans had left more or less while hannibal was rampaging across the rest of italy with cities defecting to him.

even better, they can start the game by trapping a main army of yours and forcing you to fight a battle that you can't win, where you have to kill as much as you can and then come back to beat him later. to similuate the battle of canne or something :p

[romanius24]

Actually the player faction(Rome) could just be made weaker at the beginning, thats why i think the rebels should already have Rhegion and Tarentum just like the Insubres and Boii already control North Italy.


Hannibal doesnt need to control half of Italy to be strong.He could just have Capua which would be more fun to siege and he actually used the city historically. Genoa should be Roman but have some damaged buildings since it was sacked.

Switching the battle from Tresimene to Cannae would be cool since it was a more important battle and that way Hannibal is close to Capua.

The player would have him as the main threat while the Rebels in the south and Barbarians in the north are just problems/opportunities.

[CatoTheYounger]

def agree that hannibal is superweak. even on h/h , u can easily beat him on turn 0.

the game should start out with him controlling >half of italy and multiple stacks their, requiring you to take italy back from him. i think at some point rome was the only city that romans had left more or less while hannibal was rampaging across the rest of italy with cities defecting to him.

even better, they can start the game by trapping a main army of yours and forcing you to fight a battle that you can't win, where you have to kill as much as you can and then come back to beat him later. to similuate the battle of canne or something :p

This is not true. Hanibal never controled Italy with Rome being the last city standing. Capua Tarenton and several southern cities defected but most cities were still loyal to Rome. But the cities that defected were important and caused great stress on Rome'. However the Romans used the Fabian strategy and also took back settlements when Hanibal left. They had multiple armies and he didn't and they knew he couldn't be everywhere at once. Then Hanibal would influence where the Roman armies were not. It was back and forth this way.

The scripting is good but with only one Carthaginian controlled city in Italy it's difficult for the Ai to make a move after the initial defeat they suffer. Buffing the experience of the Cathaginians or even Hanibals bodygaurd is about all they can do. The first civil war however seems acurate to me.

If you don't have the second civil war then you just fiunish your steamroll i think. I would simply like them to change the way the Civil war goes down. I would like it based on loyalty and i think the loyalty should be tweaked for all leaders. I also think leaders should have an Optimate or Populares trait and perhaps dividing on where they stand politicaly.

Just an idea.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Whilst I quite understand the points and, as you are probably aware, disable the 2nd Rebellion myself (an easy tweak that anyone can do and I detailed before - look up the 'Disable the 2nd Rebellion thread); there is a lot here that you are missing (that I found out) based upon the ideas the original Team had for RSI and then RSII.

Firstly the Mod is supposed to be challenging and not necessarily always 'fun'. Moreover the Mod is also an attempt to allow the player to actually lose - mostly either at the beginning or near the end.

It is possible that the Carthaginians could be made stronger, but the 2nd Punic War 'start' is supposed to have the player faced with the immediate challenges of split interests (Spain + Greece and Italy) with both Hannibal's sudden appearance from the Alps and the Socii Rebellion from the South. Interestingly, whilst the original Team liked 0turn-style to increase the number of battles (and a mis-appreciation of Roman recruitment), 0turn actually makes the challenge a lot less than it is in 1turn.

If the Lake Trasimene battle goes as it 'should', then Nepos gets ambushed and loses badly - then you can be in real trouble. Unfortunately Hannibal seems to often be distracted and doesn't take Ariminium and Arretium as he could - for then your troubles could be doubled! There is certainly still a genuine possibility that, especially on Hard Battles, many players could lose at this point - and that's the idea!

Equally, the 2nd Rebellion is supposed to represent (in the main) the 'big' Civil Wars of Caesar vs Pompey or the Triumvirate vs the Assassins where it was indeed half the Roman world against the other (and hence why it is so big) and that's also supposed to be a challenge that could result in losing. Those two main elements were structural to the Mods basic setup.

So, whilst I'm relatively happy with the beginning (although I would like to see a checked and supported sub-Mod with a Rome only (single settlement c300BC start)); I would (and this may be on the cards) certainly wish to help see a complete Loyalty to Rebellion re-hash so that more and 'regular' rebellions are possible, mostly based upon changes in Faction Leader and when the current FL is 'really bad'!

All those things will still need Scripts - and they are not the problem. Half the RSII Mod is, effectively, script-based. I understand the point(s), but scripts are essential.

It's worth noting that players don't like the Garrison Script sometimes - but by not having it they are cheating themselves and simply making the game easier and less of a challenge.

[romanius24]

I understand that scripts are important for the mod to work and i am not saying they should be taken out but I do think they should be improved.

The 1st rebellion is a good idea and it actually makes the player feel like everything is falling apart but i always thought Hannibal was the main threat and that the Romans conquering the Socii, Spain and other areas were strategies against him.
This script isnt a problem since its the intro to the Roman campaign but from then it should always be random rather than force the player to go through the same things.(like the Cimbri and 2nd rebellion)
It could make every campaign feel the same way rather than a new experience every time.


The 2nd rebellion is just a poorly designed feature IMO.
I understand what it represents historically and as a late game challenge but its a bad game mechanic right now.

A challenge that could result in losing is a very good idea, especially in late game when losing is very unlikely for the player.
This script isnt fair and doesnt really solve the late game challenge issue.
Is stealing half of the player's empire the only way to challenge or defeat him in late game?No, i dont believe it is.
Even when the player loses that much territory, IF they get it back then its the same problem again...the player has a massive empire and will defeat the other factions.

The reason why late game is so easy is because the amount of regions the player controls and his skill is just too great for the AI to deal with.

My idea is to turn that massive empire into a problem.Lets challenge the player into maintaining it while at the same time facing late game AI factions(usually giant empires- like the Seleucids).

In late game the player uses high quality and well organized armies to fight wars.Those armies and player skill always wins over the AI.

What if the player would have internal challenges to deal with which can weaken his economy(a problem which is never encountered in late game).

Having to constantly deal with rebel armies or regions, corruption, plagues or maybe a "fire"(a script?) that damages some important buildings in a city would weaken the player's economy which would indirectly affect armies(composition,strength) and then wars.

This way the real late game challenge would still be a random AI faction(or more) that fights "fair" and could defeat the player in an new way every time.

A feature like this could work for every player faction rather than just Rome.


I dont know how something like this would work though.But i assume it would be done through scripts.
I am thinking there should be steps to this:
25+ regions empire deals with some corruption and plagues.
50+ empire deals with corruption and plagues but also rebel/brigand armies.
75+ deals with corruption ,plagues, armies but also rebelling regions.
Beyond this maybe losing an entire province?(Spain,Greece,etc.)
Some of this should also be "controllable" maybe through loyalty or traits so that the player can limit those issues if he has the knowledge/skill.