Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: CAC 0.8, 0.9 and 1.x Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

  1. #1

    Default CAC 0.8, 0.9 and 1.x Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    Please post your feedback after playing CAC 0.8, CAC 0.9 or CAC 1.x and share your ideas for a continuos improvement of this mod Do not use this thread to post bug reports etc.! They shall be posted here instead.

    Please try to be specific on the subject if your feedback is targeting the mod development or design!

  2. #2

    Default Re: CAC 0.8 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    Playing as Lusitani in Augustus, the two Iberian factions (Lusitani and Cantanabri) are Celtic culture, this makes them unplayable because Celtic culture is 0% in all settlements, everything is divided 60%/40% between Iberian (local culture) and Roman (as there are Augustus controlled settlements in the Peninsula).

    Shouldnt Lusitani / Cantanabri be Iberian culture? Bug? Intended? Oversight?

    Only using the combat overhaul compatible with CAC, turned it off to start new campaing, still Celtic factions on Iberian soil starting with capitals at 0% Celtic culture.

    I guess it makes sense to have a Celtic culture and factions on Iberia, but the current design makes the Lusitani unplayable since youre plagued by culture penalty. Your own capital starts with 0% of your culture.

    Also no bonus objectives (or even victory conditions) for the Lusitani.

  3. #3

    Default Re: CAC 0.8 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by fcpl View Post
    Playing as Lusitani in Augustus, the two Iberian factions (Lusitani and Cantanabri) are Celtic culture, this makes them unplayable because Celtic culture is 0% in all settlements, everything is divided 60%/40% between Iberian (local culture) and Roman (as there are Augustus controlled settlements in the Peninsula).

    Shouldnt Lusitani / Cantanabri be Iberian culture? Bug? Intended? Oversight?

    Only using the combat overhaul compatible with CAC, turned it off to start new campaing, still Celtic factions on Iberian soil starting with capitals at 0% Celtic culture.

    I guess it makes sense to have a Celtic culture and factions on Iberia, but the current design makes the Lusitani unplayable since youre plagued by culture penalty. Your own capital starts with 0% of your culture.

    Also no bonus objectives (or even victory conditions) for the Lusitani.
    It is intended. The religion in Olisipo is now divided between Celtic and Latin instead of Iberian in CAC 0.9

  4. #4
    Semisalis
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    452

    Default Re: CAC 0.8 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    Mercenaries please! Ships...Troops...anything...thanks!
    I never lie to any man because I don't fear anyone. The only time you lie is when you are afraid -John Gotti

  5. #5
    The Wandering Storyteller's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    I wash my hands of this weirdness!
    Posts
    4,509

    Icon1 Re: CAC 0.8 and 0.9 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    I can't see a playable Parthia faction in the GC launch screen - is this because I have downloaded the steam version? Do I get more out of a non steam version or a steam version??

    Compared to what I have seen in the previews - I found the rosters quite lacking tbh, is this because of some design decision or something?

    What I do love is the amount of pictures you've added - where the hell did you get them from? They should be added in Improved Events mod

    I notice in the previews you have information about cities and events...playing as Rome I don't see any.
    Last edited by The Wandering Storyteller; February 15, 2015 at 07:01 PM.





















































  6. #6
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Western Canada
    Posts
    597

    Default Re: CAC 0.8 and 0.9 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    Syracus at turn 20, I think, and I can say the campaign plays very very well. I was really surprised at first to have so much money considering most other mods have increased build costs and such, but this campaign works well - due to increased build/research duration - it does the trick. I love the trick with the mercenaries, they're really expensive to purchase but I'll be able to keep them in my armies no problem. The roster is really interesting and there's a lot of cool effects you've applied to buildings.

    The battles are actually very interesting - I like what you're working on in terms of the unit spacing and cohesion. It reminds me a little of JaM's R2TR work. There is definitely an issue with the soldier spacing being like, too tight and also quite rigid in formation attack mode. Maybe you guys can chat with JaM to see how he's worked his stuff out, maybe. I personally think JaM is a bit of a genius when it comes to battle modding, so, I don't think it would hurt to get a little advice from him.

    One thing that bothers me about the vanilla research is how lacking the gpd modifiers are in the economy tree. It means researching military to get the reduced upkeep costs is practically obligatory. Consider what +1 or +2 percent will do for my agriculture income and then consider what -2 percent will do for my upkeep costs.... researching military upkeep reduction will save hundreds of coin per turn whereas 1 or 2 percent bonus agriculture wealth won't do a damn thing for me. I think you could push the GDP modifiers for both agriculture and industry from +1 to +5 percent and from +2 to +10 percent etc... then the economy tree would be attractive enough that I'd be compelled to attempt creating an agricultural or industrial economy early game rather than the usual military aims...

    I love how you've increased the build duration for settlements dramatically. This is something I did in my mod way back too, so that conquering land means you have to lord over it for a while - you can't just shoot out a garrison in a few turns. I also like very much what you've done with military buildings in terms of garrisons and recruit points. One thing that seemed strange is the very many missile units in my syracusan garrisons.. it will be interesting to see how defense goes with those units. It must be a historical implementation of yours.

    As the previous poster has said you've included some fantastic artwork... I absolutely love it.

  7. #7

    Default Re: CAC 0.8 and 0.9 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    Iutland, can you design battles to be resolved more quickly, something like battles in RSM 1.2.1? Huge battle lasts about 20 minutes, with maneuvering up to 40 minutes. It's too long, when I am forced to fight many battles in the campaign and don't want to use auto resolve.

  8. #8

    Default Re: CAC 0.8 and 0.9 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    I'm playing Himroz in GC right now and I'm just wondering why there isn't any victory objectives for this faction. is it intended or there's something wrong?

  9. #9

    Default Re: CAC 0.8 and 0.9 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    First of all: Congratulations for a great mod. Plays, feels and looks integrated, smooth and without noticeable flaws. Great work!

    That said, I have one major complaint: Lack of documentation. The "new" building chains, the AOR possibilities and requirements etc. I am in a campaign as Maurya Samraj and notice a strangely limited unit roster (no shock or melee cavalry, no pikemen?), the unability to recruit more than exactly 2 unit types (1 foot, 1 cav?) in Aria despite having the right building for more, I seem to be unable to recruit machines (ballistae) despite having the building from the research chain in multiple province capitals? And it looks I have nowhere to get the details ...

    One very minor nitpick: The removal of all the negative traits generals get for sitting in cities would be nice. Really annoying.

    Regards,
    Thorsten

  10. #10

    Default Re: CAC 0.8 and 0.9 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    Short judgement:

    First, my complaint in the previous reply about the lack of documentation is only partly true, the limited Maurya Samraj roster is in the manual. No heavy cavalry, no siege engines, no good heavy infantry.

    The plus sides of the mod:
    - Decent historical research
    - Nerf of some overpowered agent abilities
    - Really good integration of the partly altered game mechanics, the game feels and plays smoothly
    - Better survival of minor factions throughout, slower game pace overall (AI side)
    - Good approach with region specific advantages/disadvantages
    - Mercenaries well modeled - expensive to recruit but normal unit maintenance costs
    - 2 turns per year make generals/characters more valuable

    The downsides:
    - Double turn time
    - Area of Recruitment requirements gone too far - outside the core and the fringe regions of your starting faction you can not recruit anything (like: 0) and have to rely on mercenaries completely
    - Further reduction of general allowance per imperium level questionable
    - Garrisons are a joke - judged from the faction I now played for 140 turns you get no better than the lowest 3 unit types as garrisons even for shiny level 4 province capitals. Just good enough to stop some street robbers
    - Some factions have to rely fully on mercenaries if they want to have a fighting chance later in the game (the Maurya Samraj have exactly nothing than elephants for later stages, their best spear and best heavy infantry is vastly inferior to hoplites, pikemen or caucasian axemen, their cavalry including eastern conquered areas lacklustre at best (2 types of medium skirmishers, 1 type of low tier horse archers)
    - Conversion times for conquered towns are extremely (too) high - 20 turns for a naval tier 3 yard e.g. Before conversion the building in question is not delivering anything, after it still might not deliver unit recruitment (e.g. can´t recruit any type of ships black sea region as Maurya Samraj AND have no mercenaries available. AOR gone too far).
    - Region specific advantages not pronounced enough to make a difference

    Not really fun to play after reaching mid game (imperium level 4) due to the (most likely historical correct) limitations. I will delete the mod.

    Regards,
    Thorsten
    Last edited by ThorHa; April 05, 2015 at 06:43 PM.

  11. #11

    Default Re: CAC 0.8 and 0.9 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by theredviper07 View Post
    I'm playing Himroz in GC right now and I'm just wondering why there isn't any victory objectives for this faction. is it intended or there's something wrong?
    Adding victory conditions to non-standard playable factions proved unsuccesful except for Aedui. That is the cause for the lack of victory conditions

  12. #12
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Western Canada
    Posts
    597

    Default Re: CAC 0.8 and 0.9 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    Forgot to mention my barbarian pike phalanx was really awkward.. soldiers jittering/shaking.. I would love to see battle mechanics evolve in this mod.. I think unit spacing needs to come out a bit.

  13. #13
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Western Canada
    Posts
    597

    Default Re: CAC 0.8 and 0.9 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    HatG campaign as Carthage and must say having all this extra money is interesting, it means diplomacy options open up and campaigns are more complex. I noticed the economy research tree has really powerful options now - feels a little unbalanced. Also, there is a tech in the military tree that must be in error (it's at 40 turn research compared to 8 for it's cousins)

    I think maybe cavalry have become too impervious to missiles and infantry. I really like how it produces longer battles with all kinds of skirmishing and outmaneuvers but I think it's just a little too far so that it doesn't feel realistic IE: I can drive a unit of cavalry in and out of infantry battles many times without losing many troops.

  14. #14

    Default Re: CAC 0.8 and 0.9 Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by La Tene View Post
    HatG campaign as Carthage and must say having all this extra money is interesting, it means diplomacy options open up and campaigns are more complex. I noticed the economy research tree has really powerful options now - feels a little unbalanced. Also, there is a tech in the military tree that must be in error (it's at 40 turn research compared to 8 for it's cousins)

    I think maybe cavalry have become too impervious to missiles and infantry. I really like how it produces longer battles with all kinds of skirmishing and outmaneuvers but I think it's just a little too far so that it doesn't feel realistic IE: I can drive a unit of cavalry in and out of infantry battles many times without losing many troops.
    Thanks for the feedback. Regarding cavalry, I agree it could use more balancing. Therefore, the heavier horses "strength/health" is lowered by approximately 40% or more in upcoming CAC 1.0. Equation for Cavalry health is = (man health) + (horse health), whereas infantry is only man health.

  15. #15
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Western Canada
    Posts
    597

    Default Re: CAC 0.8, 0.9 and 1.x Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    Just run 1.0 for the first time: the overall battle experience is really balanced with a good feel, but, I can't get past how the fight is so full of smashing, crashing, thrashing.. yet very few casualties are occurring. There's got to be a way to produce more fatal damage without losing the overall balance. A couple ideas: cavalry need to be perhaps even more delicate in the retreat, capable of taking more losses.. but if infantry units had more penalties for dis-cohesion IE: not so able to chase my cavalry around - then cavalry might be able to continue to be that mobile hitting force they are now.. Admittedly, I'm also suggesting less health for probably most units and this would alter the overall balance for certain but if you pull down health gradually while testing rigorously you'll be able to find that perfect spot, where, the thrill of a perfect charge results in that deadly blow you were expecting. Also, if ranged units lost a little reload rate but were compensated by gaining a little missile damage they would also feel more threatening.

    One other angle: I was using illeryian cavalry against some elite roman sword infantry so it was understandable when my repeated charges did so little damage.. to those well equipped troops. But, the actual depiction of the events left me thinking those cavalry should be more expensive and doing more damage. They are well equipped and durable - perhaps increasing charge damage but also recruit costs for some of these rather inexpensive cavalry units is in order.

  16. #16
    Tired of TWC Arrogance
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3,246

    Default Re: CAC 0.8, 0.9 and 1.x Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    Finally got a chance to try 1.0. Simply excellent. I had a battle with believable results based on troop match-ups, and which lasted long enough to have flanking, incidents, some heroics, and maneuvering across and within the battle line without micro-management. And best of all, time to enjoy the 'movie'. Great work, and thank you.

  17. #17
    Elianus's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Athens,Greece
    Posts
    760

    Default Re: CAC 0.8, 0.9 and 1.x Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    The successor elites are completely broken. I am talking about the units that fight in macedonian phalanx with shorter spears. Something is just wrong with this setup and the perform awfully for their stats.
    Edit: I think it's the formation. It does not work with anything less than pikes. Without the formation they are much more effective.
    Last edited by Elianus; August 03, 2015 at 03:39 PM.
    ''Πας μη Έλλην, βάρβαρος.''

  18. #18
    Civis
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Malang city, East Java province, Indonesia
    Posts
    144

    Default Re: CAC 0.8, 0.9 and 1.x Gameplay feedback and mod discussion

    I have high suggestion and I hope the Team will be agree and apply this suggestion for the next update.

    after playing Alexander the Great campaign, I see and feel, it use Hellenic faction like Athenai and Sparta at Rome 2, I think that is wrong, Alexander or Makedon with Alexander campaign must be different, it must take or use Successor like Seleucid, I mean for multi culture buildings and also armies type.

    Alexander the Great never think must change good Persian administration buildings and He even use PErsian culture armies for good use, if We make Makedon for Alexander campaign is similar like Hellenic Makedon, Athena, and Sparta like at Rome 2, then I am believe Alexander the Great will hate it, just like at movie, Alexander have hope to other culture, not very fanatic must be only Hellenic, but Hellenic to support good foundation of other culture.

    ok, thank You, I have big hope, that My suggestion will have attention from the Team and will be applied soon, My big thanks for making Alexander the Great campaign, I am very happy playing it.

Posting Permissions

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