Rome II Total Realism - Beta Feedback and Suggestions

[Velico]

Morale for units seems really erratic. I've had two units of medium cavalry go after skirmishers with nothing else around to rout before they even charge. I've watched Triarii break in 1v1 with flanks secure after ~10 men died. My general has routed just running back and forth behind my line for morale bonus with equal numbers around. I don't know what's going on with it, but it's really unsatisfying combat. Having lines meet for a whopping five seconds to watch either one of your units, or the opponents, rout just isn't fun.

[Khamac]

When my army are winning, a 10/full cavalry unit pursuit a fleeing unit and they broken. This is insane with realism. The morale when my side are winning must maintain a damaged unit better than a losing side, or balancing situation.

[La Tene]

Hey. I've been battle testing a lot and there certainly are some balancing issues. But when it comes to the morale system you guys have to understand that these mechanics are designed to represent the very real fright that troops face on the battle field, which often leads to a kind of panic routing. Troops didn't go head long in to combat when they could clearly see it was not in their favor. On the reverse side, troops in combat who discovered their flanks insecure were very capable of fleeing out of a desire to preserve their lives.

I feel that Total Realism is the only mod daring enough to portray the very unpredictable nature of combat, and that it should be valued. In honesty, I am capable of keeping routing under control and I usually win my battles. I think it is because I've accepted the way the mechanics work and have learned to adapt to the fragile nature of R2TR warfare

As far as the really extreme and seemingly senseless routing you've described I can only say I don't experience the same thing. Please keep at your battles and try to adapt - you might start to appreciate what seemed silly at first. In fact, now that I've become accustomed to Total Realism battles, vanilla game play and other mods feel rather ridiculous; men, as a rule, don't offer themselves in sacrifice but rather men are always making judgments as to what may be their fortunes and they are acting accordingly.

[Khamac]

I think when I already win the battle, unit will not broken when pursuit enemies.

[tumbitiger]

Have to agree, the morale system is strange to say the least. Just fought a battle (Hard difficulty)where I was attempting to sack Macomades (Nth Africa). I had ~1000 troops consisting of 8x Quadreme Hastati, 4x Quinquerem Principes and 2x Hexareme Principes (Admiral units) to their 1300 Garrison troops consisting of low tier spearme and a few 60unit Javelin men. Had them surrounded from 4 sides, attacked all sides simultaneously and all my men routed within 5 mins.... Even saw a yawning gap which gave me a nice flank on one of their spearmen and the unit I detached to engage routed before It engaged. Very frustrating

[JaM]

you need to keep flanks protected, and keep your general close to your men ( frankly i neved had issues like you describe in my games.. usually i consider Roman units way too tough).. Anyway there were some morale issues in previous patches which were finally fixed by CA in patch14beta.. so expect massive improvements in next patch14 compatible r2tr release

[tumbitiger]

My flanks were secure as I assualted all their battle lines head on (except the unit I sent through to engage the enemies flank)... Both my admirals were also fighting in the front lines. One of which routed early as he was wavering because of "flanks not secure", even though there were no enemy units engaging the units flank. I have only fought about 8 or so battles and this is the only time they melted away so quickly.

[JaM]

in patch13 there is a strange bug in cities, where even if you engage enemy from front, you receive penalty for being attacked in rear.. it has been fixed in patch14 beta

[tumbitiger]

No worries JaM. Just was shocked as I've never come across it before. Apart from that, really liking this mod Especially the Naval fixes which are a Gods send.

[JaM]

patch14 compatible version will be released soon (not many changes are needed to make it work actually..)

[neoiq5719]

I think the idea of an increase in public unrest while the army is within city limits is interesting BUT that should be applied to roman cities OR romanazied cities that have been taken over. If u capture a settlement having the army in there should quell unrest. When the town/city has more than 50% culture could be considered romanized and no army should be in there. Just an idea.

[La Tene]

neoiq: I disagree to some degree. Sure the capacity for troops to quell unrest is real, but leaving a large army in a settlement for any longer than say, a few months or certainly a year is bound to cause hatred among the population no matter what are the cultural factors. I think the new public order system here, in turning order on its head, is drastically improving realism and in fact vanilla Rome 2 and previous TW titles pretty much had it wrong.

Seriously, a straight occupation of a town or city is not the greatest way of simulating the repressive effect of military. Consider the american occupation of Iraq: troops are relatively safe in their bases outside of heavily populated districts and, rather, they face hostilities when they are patrolling civilian populations. Repression is instituted via military engagements (as well as by corrupting/co-opting local officials ) not by occupying the couches of local residents, bare feet and uninvited. This is all a simulation of course so there's no real foul on the part of CA but indeed, a fortified army on the periphery of a town or city seems the responsible move on the part of a general.

[JaM]

regarding morale, it will be severely tweaked in next version. I spend some time testing the behavior with patch14beta, and i had to tune it a bit, slightly reduce certain penalties due to new bugs this patch brings ( ). It is slightly less hardcore than previous mechanics, but it was the only way how to cope with the new patch.

[RGA]

regarding morale, it will be severely tweaked in next version. I spend some time testing the behavior with patch14beta, and i had to tune it a bit, slightly reduce certain penalties due to new bugs this patch brings ( ). It is slightly less hardcore than previous mechanics, but it was the only way how to cope with the new patch.

What do you think about adding fear factor for all horse cavalry units? Facing a cavalry charge was one of the most intimidating experience of any soldier of any ages. And the presence of cavalry around (i.e. no charge) was enough to worry even the bravest soldier. IIRC, the Old Guard in Waterloo attacked in hollow square formation as they feared the British cavalry.

Is this also possible to make cavalry "fear" pike- and spear-armed units?

[JaM]

Theoretically, it is possible to give spearmen trait to scare off cavalry, while cavalry can get the scare off infantry.. if I'm not mistaken both these options are in. yet it will require some further testing, but definitely something to consider in the future. yet, im not so sure, it was spears horses were affraid.. they were affraid to run into any solid block of men. having spears in hands was just added bonus..

[necronox]

Theoretically, it is possible to give spearmen trait to scare off cavalry, while cavalry can get the scare off infantry.. if I'm not mistaken both these options are in. yet it will require some further testing, but definitely something to consider in the future. yet, im not so sure, it was spears horses were affraid.. they were affraid to run into any solid block of men. having spears in hands was just added bonus..

horses are trained to ignore their normal instinct to avoid danger, yet there are not idiots, even the best trained horse will still avoid spears where possible, during the charge of the polish cavalry against the spanish, some horses simply refused to charge the enemy (unlike the light brigade, which charged over open ground, horses don't mind that, except they where cut down to piece long time before they reached their destination). however i think that the more there is horses, the less they feel in danger. which explains why hundred of cavalry can charge while a few dozen can't.

[JaM]

Amount of specifically trained horses in the ancient cavalry unit would be quite minimal... only kings would be rich enough to afford such beasts... majority of horses used were just plain ordinary, with strong herd instinct... such animals would not willingly run full speed into solid obstacle.

[necronox]

Amount of specifically trained horses in the ancient cavalry unit would be quite minimal... only kings would be rich enough to afford such beasts... majority of horses used were just plain ordinary, with strong herd instinct... such animals would not willingly run full speed into solid obstacle.

trained horses would be needed, perhaps not perfectly drilled, but at least the basics, otherwise, they would just run away almost immediately or they would get distracted too easily about common thing that happen in battle, such as quick movements, otherwise, they'd be a danger to the people riding them instead the other way around.

plus, usually there are only maybe 2-3 stallions (excluding foals) in any herd, more then that and you're just asking for a disaster, although i don't know if they would have used geldings, stallions or mares.

[JaM]

true, but still. even during Napoleonic wars, it was a common practice to get any horse you could get... horses are fragile, usually they wont survive harsher conditions. during wars, there was usually twice as dead horses than men, if not more... replacing horses was one of crucial thing for every cavalry unit... I remember reading about French Cuirassier regiment being unfit for battle due to being equipped with german horses (taken from countryside) they were unable to control... i bet the situation would be the same in ancient times, or even worse, as training for warhorses was not yet established..

[necronox]

using WWI as a reference for horse in warfare is a bad example since horses where treated particularly badly back then, even by the day's standards.

Horse training in warfare has been common practice for a very long time, according to wiki the hittites wrote a book about horse training for combat. either way, even during the days of napoleon, horses would probably have been taken from farms and similar, so even these horses would have been used to being ridden.

i'd say that horses have been using in combat for thousands of years. if the hittites wrote a book about it, so they've been used for idea of war horses for a long time, so i would doubt very much that they didn't have training, so by roman times, they would have at least had a decent training. i wouldn't be suprised if our techniques for training horses in warfare (or what we used to have, since they are seldom used nowadays) where similar, or perhaps even a sort of inherited version of.