Rome II Total Realism - Beta Feedback and Suggestions

[Maberous]

Damn I love the experience-system. It really is an big difference between newly recruited unit and veteran, not to mention two silver chevron elite. I have two veteran/elite armies that just "steamroll" almost everything, but I just raised two green armies and almost lost my first battle against relative weak enemy army, just because I didn't take the noobie factor in the tactics. Most clear difference is on city assault on walls. Rookies just brake on every occasion, unless you get local superior force, but my elites just laugh hacking through the arrow and javeling fire and burcher the defending troops after getting on the top.

Navy recruitment still not working, as mentioned. I have now the option to recruit, but no recruitment points no matter the city or port level. There was an desire for save games, do you want games that were started before the latest beta but played on it?

[LestaT]

Yes. Any save games base on our 2.0 release (on 27th September).

Thanks.

p/s: The more we have the better compatibility test we can do with our internal release candidate. To be honest, some of the changes and add on will probably need a new campaign start for them to take effect but we will try in every possibly way to make all exiting save games still playable for those who are already deep into a campaign and would hate (like I do) to have to start a new one with every patch that comes out.

[Demon Soul]

I hope after update we will be able to continue our campaigns.

In mean time I'm enjoying my Odrusai campaign (I uploaded my save in Urgent request thread).
I'm playing on H/M settings.
I've notices that CAI is acting quite reasonable. The enemy armies attacked my general few times when I was out off my city walls. I lost few battles in that way and then victorious army raze my settlement, they don't capture it!
Diplomacy seems okay, so far; CAI is acting according to the rule the enemy of my enemy is my friend (forging alliances against me).
One odd: I've notices that one full stack army, my neighbours (I'm not, or been before, at war with them) that don't like me very much, approach one of my settlements and stand it there for 3 or more turns (you can see them in this save: 255 bc). After they reach my settlement I was able to set non-agrressive pact with Makedon, and they were in good relations with each other.

[ManiusPrime]

I do very much enjoy the mod, but some things that I have noticed. Major one is after a certain point during my play through. I found that cities weren't being armed and had almost no defense. This allowed cities to begin changing hands in a matter of minutes if you left the area with the main legion.

I do agree with someone that asked about the ability to ensure that the Julius name doesn't disappear. The main names in the beginning just seem to disappear.

I do enjoy the balancing in the mod. Where playing vanilla I can easily handle hard with no problem. R2TR I am finding Hard is a real chalange, but the major problem stands with the AI not wanting to attack over seas. I want Carthage to declare war on me when things go really red. However, I do believe the AI should accept peace when they have lost half their land and their capital is besieged. I was trying to make Carthage pay me every dime they had. It is to bad that you can't do like history and make them keep paying even after the war.

[AquelMerde]

Love the mod, thanks for the hard work guys. I've been around since early r2r, and it was the mod that got me interested enough to try and pursue a pHd in classics. You're awesome.
The recent Roman Auxillia changes were great (adding piedetes and equites socii in Italy), and I would like to see that stay around. However, it would also be great if there were a recruitable equivalent to socii triarii comming, and more socii units were added to the auxillia roster. To raise an allied legion I've had to keep an army near the boarder of Napoli and Campagnia for years, stepping over the boarder each turn, hoping to fill in the gaps in my army with the randomly generates levy units.

[Maurits]

We're still working on the fleshing out of our Italian roster, the last weeks we've mainly been focussed on getting an Emperor Edition compatible version, though

[AquelMerde]

And your labored haven't gone unnoticed. Thanks again for the awesome mod.

[lesterthenerd]

anyone know whats the best difficulty for this mod?

[LestaT]

To raise an allied legion I've had to keep an army near the boarder of Napoli and Campagnia for years, stepping over the boarder each turn, hoping to fill in the gaps in my army with the randomly generates levy units.

We cheated a bit by making all (or almost all) socii units recruitable from Brundisium. This is because we (or I ) couldn't fogire out how to increase the numbers of units where you can 'levy from vassal/socii/ally' option.

[AnthoniusII]

Few questions:
Will be in game the historical Legions?
Have you find a way to make all settlements with walls?
A sugestion for naming Macedonian and Succesors armies:
Use the term Taxis or Phalanx and not word like stratos or stratia!
Despite the fact that taxis was a small regiment size unit the term fits better because each taxis had the name of the general that was in charge (could it happen?) or simply numbered!
Phalanx was a single unit of 12000 infantrymen and as a size fits for army term also! Personaly i believe army names like Taxis of Perdikas or Taxis III etc is much better!

[JaM]

Legion names are a bit problematic, as game covers wide scope during legions were used, while named legions only appeared during Late Republic/Early Empire. Yet there is still question of game scale, if we want to single stack represent a legion or consular/Praetor army. Representing a legion, means we would go with scale 2:1, which means you could have 4 hastati,4 principes and 2 Triarii, as well as 4 Velites and 2 Equites units in the stack for full Legion, which gives you 17 units (16+general) in the stack, with 3 slots free for some siege train or mercenaries. if we go with Consular army, then scale has to be 4:1, where single legion would be represented by 2xhastati,2xprincipes and 1xtriarii, together with 3xvelites and 1x equites. (9 units per legion, which gives you option to have 2 legions + general)

There is no fixed choice now for a scale, as both 2:1 and 4:1 are practically working together, and are up to player what he wants to have.

[Demokritos]

I'd like to test this beta version out, but it already contains a uniform colours mod (AC), and I'd like to use my own (ACR). With the beta available only on Steam, this is not possible, is it?

Edit: I meant (before recieving confirmation about your update plans), is it possible to edit the subscribed file from Steam accordingly without functionality problems?

Edit 2: Never mind (if the update is going according to plan).

[La Tene]

A quick discussion on troop unlocks.

Troop unlocks are an exciting aspect of the game, and in some cases they can alter game outcome quite substantially (particularly when a mobile unit is being unlocked to an army that is without one) However, faction rosters that include the "nuts and bolts" so to speak, off the top of their campaign are capable of achieving victories and expanding. What this means is that the user must carefully decide upon an economic or a military focused road to victory, of course. But the military road to victory cannot be too penalizing because faction rosters often do indeed consist of a decent variety off the top, and hence the wise move is often the economic road, in order to stay competitive.

That being said, I've noticed some build options that either unlock troops or increase melee stats, that also flat out remove wealth output. This is problematic in many cases because often the troop unlock is not a necessary addition but rather just an exciting one (like stealth guerrillas and such) In the case of melee upgrades, existing armies will need to pay for the upgrades once the build is complete - this becomes very costly once everything is added up, which makes removing wealth from build options exorbitantly penalizing.

On another note, it is important to recognize that while troop unlocks are fun and potentially important, economically they do not make any improvement to your campaign - assuming that recruitment and upkeep costs are properly balanced. Garrison additions are actually much more economically beneficial given that both the initial recruit cost (which is much higher in R2TR) of the unit plus turn by turn upkeep have to be taken in to account. Further, given the fact that in R2TR troops are more reliant on experience for improved performance, troop unlocks are even less important to a users campaign.

The value of a troop unlock needs to be carefully considered when balancing build options. For example, adding swords to an army is more valuable than adding a specialized ranged unit when their is already ranged options in the roster. Unlocking cavalry is more important to any army that has poor ranged capacity. Removing wealth from military buildings is a risky proposition given that most factions have a nuts and bolts army off the top of a campaign making competition vs these factions difficult without a good economic position for your own faction.

[Eamonn]

Hi,

my suggestion would be to have a setting for people who like longer battles. Things are over a little quick for me. In the old realism mod the battle line would ebb and flow over the period of time. I guess you could call the setting realism or something like that because the battles last longer.

[JaM]

I'm currently working on some (major) combat changes which i would like to have in next version when its ready. As a small teaser i can say it will be something i already had in my previous mods instead of fatigue, which is very problematic in TW games as AI is not made to be aware of it. new system will include new unit and general abilities and will make a step forward to better battlefield realism

[The Wandering Storyteller]

I have a few ideas on the block, I was wondering with the current mod tool kit - could you be able to implement these kind of things?

This one is assigning generals as administrators ( recently announced in Attlia)

In Shogun 2 and other games, you were able to get at least trade agreements. I would rather have trade agreements as an very high factor rather than low. Another thing that the games lacks is needing some sort of administrative positions. In Shogun 2, you would set your generals to be administrators as well considering during the time period many generals took on administrative positions in order to make sure their Clan would profit and survive. In Rome 2, this was an wonderful feature which CA did not tap into. Look at it, you have Hellenistic factions, Barbarian factions, Eastern factions, the major factions at least could have had different ways of administrating your generals. Why didn't they go look into the history books or look at EB, which contains an detailed expenditure of administrative buildings which you can build in your cities. The Ptolemeies, I believe or I can't remember, simply divided their empire into three big provinces, and then set governors to rule them, which would be Stragetos or someone else. Why can't you have that? The Selecuids as well may have had some different system but something quite similar on that scale.

General Loyalty:

And for Parthia, why can't you assign your generals various positions in the nobility or have a loyalty system like they had in Shogun 2? The Parthians were well known for having internal conflict and civil wars. What was done in Shogun 2 can be implemented here in Rome 2, you could have some generals growing immensely powerful, and the way they did it in Shogun 2 was that the General figure would have a bunch of stars. If you knew that your general was 9 star, he was literally the BOSS. He was powerful, he won victories for you, he did everything else for you. This is an accurate portrayal of what CA did when they researched into the Japanese culture, and during that period, there were some of the best generals which you would be scared off if you fought on the enemy side. I will tell you something that had happened in my Takeda Campagin. My empire had carved an very good section for itself, having destroyed the Askhikaga Shogunate, it was now a position between the powerful Hojo that was in my backside, and the Hojo or some other clan. However, my capital, Kai had been neglected during my campaign of expansion. And all the best generals were busy fighting the Hojo or whatever. So the Hojo attacked Kai, and my garrison at Kai was not the best. The general that commanded it was a 1 star and he was the heir to the clan, but he did not get much experience. Very much this would then reflect some of the inept commanders of the Sengoku jidhai era.

Displaying Political features:

Another thing is your stats. In Shogun 2, it gave you the prominence levels, it told you what your clan's income and how you were viewed. That was the main page for your faction. In Rome 2, all you have is an list. Records/summary/stats. What is this? Its bad because there is nothing! In Shogun 2, the main page for your clan had organized tables and sections which clearly told you what you were doing, how many provinces you had and how much prominence you were gaining that would reach to the Shogun's attention. Rome 2's main stat page must be glorious, so if I play as Macedon, I must have the banner of Macedon on behind while my clan leader looks on, then we'll have tables detailing my records and stats. Not just in one list. We can be more incentive and more inventive.

A way of preventing minor factions take over large factions:

Another feature that needs to be added is the campagin options for deciding whether you want historical or not. In NTW, CA allowed you the option of having world domination or historical. So when I played as France, my allies were more loyal to me and I believe CA got this right because during the Napoleonic era, most of the german states surrounding France became quick allies of Napoleon. Now, this does not mean that every faction should have allies from the start, but CA gave the player a very historical/scripted event thing. So when I attacked Austria, I was going to face a lot of armies.

But basically saying, it was historical, it was realistic. Plus your allies or small states never got powerful, it was only France, Russia, Austria, Prussia and Britian that were the major players, small states like the Swiss or Hannover never stood a chance in front of these major powers. In Darthmod Napoleon, Darthmod gave the minor factions the secret income that made Major/Minor factions on level. But then I do not want this. I want it to be that small states have some chance, but not all. Their income has to be basic. It should never exceed, unless some event in history has happened. I don't want to see Athens and Sparta expanding, and thanks to playing with mods, I checked when doing diplomacy with them, their incomes were only 5000. I don't want the barbaric factions to have already artilery in 272 bc! No reason for them to develop this, and it is not historical, and is seriously unrealistic. I want the major factions to be expanding more. So there should be two modes: Historical, where you see more major factions having a chance, and Sandbox, where you can literally do all you wish. This would make things easier for us that like to follow historical settings.

How to improve edicts:
If I am to click on my city, I want the stats and info for it. Then I will have an feature where it says '' city happnies/development'' which will come as an bar symbol. So I click on this and this will give me the list of what is needed to upgrade the city instead of depending on the encyclopaedia. Now, there will be at least five or four edicts for me to issue as governor, so for example

Edict 1: Implement a broad economic policy which will further reduce costs in agrilcuture, but increasing spending on the upkeep of your forces.

Edict 2: Enforce Romainsation on your provinces should they rebelling.

Edict 3: Festivals! Sire, I humbly request you, we must hold festivals if we are to remain popular and powerful. Not only the gods will savour it, we will be blessed with more in our favour.

Those are just examples, and then we would have buttons saying '' issue edict''. You can also scroll down looking for other edicts, and if there are some which do not impress you, you can have a button saying '' scrap edict'', and if you want to change an edict, you can have the option of '' edit edict'', where you can change the text a little, or when you press on the edit edict button, a new screen will come giving you opinions as to why you are opposed to this. Once you click one of these opinions, then a whole range of advisors opinions will come on your list offering you alternatives. Think of it like some sort of governmental style option. This is not complicated at all to implement, and would only take a couple of hours or so. But this is an immersion feature, so you can control which edicts you want in your own cities. Its a bit like passing laws or something. I think this would be very feasible and would be in my opinion,a feature that I would love. Another great thing is, that if this was to be implemented on your capital, you could also receive reports of how your generals spend their money or what not. Stainless steel allowed this and also did a system where, that when your general gained experience, he became richer and more experienced. If your general was poor, he had a difficult life winning victories and so on. If he was of the nobility, things became different. Add this sort of thing for our generals in Rome 2, so they don't become every single generic model that I just enlist. Another thing is, that if you wanted generals, in M2TW, you would get a feature called adopt an general or character, and then you would look at their experience and what they have done to achieve this nomination.

This was personally a better system, than having to enlist an range of candidates that you know nothing about! I want a system where you can adopt candidates with an character profile detailing their training and experience. After all, you don't think the military in real life won't employ just generals in second, they'll first look through the candidate's experience and then consider whether to adopt or him not. Same for companies, if I apply for a job, they'll first look at my CV and consider whether I can perform, and have the experience or not t perform my role. This is very common for Prime Ministers, as when they choose their cabinets, they will be looking at some ministers having a look at their experience and decide which ministers to put in. Think of David Cameron and his cabinet. If my general or minister cannot perform the role, then the I as the leader would fire them and put someone more capable in his position. You sort of did this with the NTW political system, where I could kick ministers if they had very bad experience, and instead put someone with more skills. So you need to combine the system of kicking, and the system of adopting candidates into the military. You can also do this for governors as well. But it would be an excellent system which I believe would return the heart of total's war main part that is missing.

[Khamac]

My suggestion about formation:
- Speed to rotate the "in formation" squad: low tier foot sol (very very slow) < mid tier foot sol < veteran foot sol < barbaric foot sol (they don't have formation)<<< low tier cavalry < mid tier cavalry < veteran cavalry
- In rotating formation: bonus of formation must be lower, less to veteran and more to low tier, cavalry almost none.
=> Why I suggest this? I think formation give war in order, like business, who control formation better win the war. When a general order foot soldier to change the direction of a squad is very hard and slow. This will make cavalry tactic more serious to unaware of backstabbing or flanking. This will solve the tactic of missile cavalry running around foot archer and shoot.

[JaM]

While it is not possible to change turning speed based on experience, it is possible to adjust it on class/entity basis and next release already handles that in similar fashion you have mentioned. thanks for suggestion

[Khamac]

at certain level, a low tier unit can upgrade to mid tier, high tier (researched or have the building in that province)

[JaM]

This is something we are planning to do for certain factions that have a lot of similar units in their recruitment tree.. like Celtic factions for example... you will start with levy troops, but at some point (research) you will be able to upgrade those to veterans, while new type of infantry becomes available.. for now such upgrade process only works with Carthage and Rome, but other factions (Celts most likely in next version) will get similar treatment as well.