[Download & Installation] Divide et Impera 1.3.2a - Updated April 16 2023

[Tenerife_Boy]

It is not realistic at all for battles to be purely determined by the elite units. While it is true that elite units would have cut through levies in a 1 on 1 engagement, it is also true that they were too expensive and rare to really determine great battles. You can't simulate their scarcity in the game, as such you overpower elite units in their significance. Historically, battles were determined by masses of badly armored weak units, because that's what they had available. If battle stats are set up so that bad units barely matter, you're creating a fantasy world that never existed.

How wrong you are like 200% wrong...but I would just limit to what KAM said by giving him +1 credit to his arguments.

[KAM 2150]

For Germanic tribes during clashes like Arausio CIaagent11 is right but outside of really huge numbers they also had great tactics. With good tactics you can beat elites with lighter units in DeI but there is a big difference between untrained, unarmoured levy and unarmoured but trained troop. I think main problem on TWC is overuse of the word "levy" as it does not mean the same as light troops. Even among "true" levy units we need to draw the line as for example Athenian Hoplites are considered levies but they use great equipment, in this case we have levies who are properly equiped and had some military training but are not making a living out of it. Now some farmers with clubs, knives and pitchfork are not trained and should not be considered as something that will hold elite units in place. They can be used for flanking manouvers or drawing the enemy, but not expected as reliable force.

[CIaagent11]

I hardly believe in a cliam where you said unit routed after 5 losses. Unless ENTIRE army was already routing and they were exhausted, that is impossible to happen.

Maybe I'm slightly exaggerating, but it was the beginning of the battle. I play on normal unit scale though, so 5 men would have been a bigger proportion of the unit than for you. I had sent the Tarantine levy up front to charge first, as such not a course of action that can be expected to have too much success, I know. But I had expected them to hold out a bit more. Before I could even give my second line the attack order, they were wavering and some routing at almost full strength. No matter what I would have done with them, they would not have held the battle line for long enough to make a useful contribution to the battle, so they were wasted unit slots in my army.

They can be used for flanking manouvers or drawing the enemy, but not expected as reliable force.

Problem is, due to the 20 unit limit for armies in TW, it's a great risk to fill up your scarce slots with effectively useless troops. You know the enemy is probably going to come at you with a full stack, so why waste army slots on useless troops? It would become an ornament you add for the sake of making your armies feel realistic, not for gameplay purposes.

Point remains that armor was extraordinarily expensive, and not available in large numbers until much later eras. Making one unit of chainmail required 1000 hours of labor, and even today a museum quality piece might cost hundreds of thousands of Dollars. The third century BC had no ability to equip entire armies with it. The vast majority of soldiers, even for the roman republic long after it's ascendancy as a superpower, was effectively unarmored peasant soldiers. Just look at the Hastati, the most numerous first line of the victorious romans; they effectively stood there in their tunics. Popping entire armies full of glittering, armored elite units is easy in game, since neither the player nor the AI usually have to care too much about money. Thus gearing battle stats towards their use in effect over-powers them, because the simulation does not take their scarcity into account. Just saying.

[jdofo]

How wrong you are like 200% wrong...but I would just limit to what KAM said by giving him +1 credit to his arguments.

Arguments shouldn't be considered from the simplistic right/wrong point of view when we were childs/teenagers. Maybe what was wrong was your attitude towards disagreement, instead... Cheers!

[KAM 2150]

Maybe I'm slightly exaggerating, but it was the beginning of the battle. I play on normal unit scale though, so 5 men would have been a bigger proportion of the unit than for you. I had sent the Tarantine levy up front to charge first, as such not a course of action that can be expected to have too much success, I know. But I had expected them to hold out a bit more. Before I could even give my second line the attack order, they were wavering and some routing at almost full strength. No matter what I would have done with them, they would not have held the battle line for long enough to make a useful contribution to the battle, so they were wasted unit slots in my army.



Problem is, due to the 20 unit limit for armies in TW, it's a great risk to fill up your scarce slots with effectively useless troops. You know the enemy is probably going to come at you with a full stack, so why waste army slots on useless troops? It would become an ornament you add for the sake of making your armies feel realistic, not for gameplay purposes.

Point remains that armor was extraordinarily expensive, and not available in large numbers until much later eras. Making one unit of chainmail required 1000 hours of labor, and even today a museum quality piece might cost hundreds of thousands of Dollars. The third century BC had no ability to equip entire armies with it. The vast majority of soldiers, even for the roman republic long after it's ascendancy as a superpower, was effectively unarmored peasant soldiers. Just look at the Hastati, the most numerous first line of the victorious romans; they effectively stood there in their tunics. Popping entire armies full of glittering, armored elite units is easy in game, since neither the player nor the AI usually have to care too much about money. Thus gearing battle stats towards their use in effect over-powers them, because the simulation does not take their scarcity into account. Just saying.

Depends on the perioid but average Hastati had more than just bare tunic, especially later when their equipment was blending with Principes. Not to mention they had great shields and weapons plus training, they were MILES ahead of some paesants or other poorly armed, untrained troops. And when fighting againt real elite, even Hastati had large troubles like againt Macedonian Agema/Royal Peltasts.

While I do get 20 stack limitation argument, I do not agree with your point there as you rule out economy aspect. If you need troops and you don't have much money or proper population, you go with cheapest units. If you have money and population, there is no point in going for those units because there should not be any points for getting untrained and unarmed people. Same with historical armies, proper ancient armies were armed and trained, not to mention that wars were often waged by mercenaries, who made war their way of living. Levies in sense I think you bring it up, were kind of levies in Boudica army, more akin to angry mob, which Romans had little to no problems dealing with once proper force was mobilized.

[SpardaSon21]

I think DeI could help in the levy discussion by separating levies into two different kinds. A proper levy unit would be those raised among the populace and given proper weapons and training, while a drafted unit would be the masses given basic equipment and drill.

[KYREAPER]

Maybe I'm slightly exaggerating, but it was the beginning of the battle. I play on normal unit scale though, so 5 men would have been a bigger proportion of the unit than for you. I had sent the Tarantine levy up front to charge first, as such not a course of action that can be expected to have too much success, I know. But I had expected them to hold out a bit more. Before I could even give my second line the attack order, they were wavering and some routing at almost full strength. No matter what I would have done with them, they would not have held the battle line for long enough to make a useful contribution to the battle, so they were wasted unit slots in my army.



Problem is, due to the 20 unit limit for armies in TW, it's a great risk to fill up your scarce slots with effectively useless troops. You know the enemy is probably going to come at you with a full stack, so why waste army slots on useless troops? It would become an ornament you add for the sake of making your armies feel realistic, not for gameplay purposes.

Point remains that armor was extraordinarily expensive, and not available in large numbers until much later eras. Making one unit of chainmail required 1000 hours of labor, and even today a museum quality piece might cost hundreds of thousands of Dollars. The third century BC had no ability to equip entire armies with it. The vast majority of soldiers, even for the roman republic long after it's ascendancy as a superpower, was effectively unarmored peasant soldiers. Just look at the Hastati, the most numerous first line of the victorious romans; they effectively stood there in their tunics. Popping entire armies full of glittering, armored elite units is easy in game, since neither the player nor the AI usually have to care too much about money. Thus gearing battle stats towards their use in effect over-powers them, because the simulation does not take their scarcity into account. Just saying.

Except the Hastati were never known for winning the battles. The main function of the hastati was to have a decent force with a very large shield(and thus better natural/automatic defense) who were expendable(less training, not as valuable). And then to serve WITH the Principes as the ONE-TWO punch in battle. The Hastati-Principe main-line combo was the bread and butter of the Roman attack, with the cavalry winning the flanks and causing a massive route. And the triarii were supposed to mainly be spectators, unless bad things happened.

The hastati were much better than probably 90% of other cheap/expendable units, as they have a huge shield, and strong backup(principes) who would come in and relieve them after a few short bursts of battle.

The hastati were never meant to hold the line against very good quality units. But they held well against decent units, but still required the principes 100% of the time(unless the opposing army was terrible or poorly commanded).

In the case of using cheap levies for the initial assault... that only works if the enemy:
1. Has very weak units where ur levies can 1v2 them decently(maybe not win, but could do some serious damage to them).
OR
2. If the enemy engages with only a small levie battle-line as well... making it an even fight (5 on 5).

But if the enemy sends more units of not-so-worst quality, then yeah any levie battle-line should falter quickly. Because they are out-manned, and out-qualified...

So its a tactic best used in certain situations only.

In real battles, a majority of commanders kept reserves, as the flanks were usually more important than the main line...
A weak mainline that would lose after 1 hour, may survive 45 minutes and survive the entire battle if a good flanking force hammers the enemy in time...

I mean you dont want a mainline of paper, but a line of paper-PLATES isnt bad, so to speak, as long as the flanks win.

[SpardaSon21]

Actually, Roman cavalry wasn't considered an essential part of the formation, and were used primarily to tie up the enemy cavalry. Roman combat doctrine heavily relied on the line infantry, first with the maniple and then the cohort, breaking the enemy forces. Both the Hastati and Principes were line infantry, and both Camillan and Polybian tactics used them together. Camillan maniples had the Hastati supporting the Principes as the second line as light, maneuverable, reserve forces, and Polybian tactics switched the order since the Hastati were now better equipped and trained and could hold a line better, if not defeat the typical lower-quality forces used by the various local tribes.

[KYREAPER]

My point is that without having decent cavalry, the Roman line dies.
If the Roman cavalry routes before the mainline can do its job, then the Roman main line gets flanked and probably loses, then it comes down to the triarii and pray they can handle whats left(which could be more than THEY can handle depending on how fast the Roman cavalry routed, and how fast the enemy cavalry flanked/routed the Roman mainline.

Basically, without secure flanks, any mainline is garbage. So its probably THE most important part of a battle formation.
As a general, if you put allllll your guys in the middle... no matter how strong/good they are.... Any halfway decent general can tie them up for an hour and then flank the living heck out of you.

So flanks are extremely, extremely important.

Even if the cavalry doesnt even engage the enemy, it can deter the enemy flanks from progressing, allowing the roman mainline to win THAT little battle.

Thats my point.

The glorious roman formations fall to pieces without having secure flanks. Just as ANY formation snaps to pieces without a secure flank.

[CIaagent11]

Except the Hastati were never known for winning the battles. The main function of the hastati was to have a decent force with a very large shield(and thus better natural/automatic defense) who were expendable(less training, not as valuable). And then to serve WITH the Principes as the ONE-TWO punch in battle. The Hastati-Principe main-line combo was the bread and butter of the Roman attack, with the cavalry winning the flanks and causing a massive route. And the triarii were supposed to mainly be spectators, unless bad things happened.

The hastati were much better than probably 90% of other cheap/expendable units, as they have a huge shield, and strong backup(principes) who would come in and relieve them after a few short bursts of battle.

The hastati were never meant to hold the line against very good quality units. But they held well against decent units, but still required the principes 100% of the time(unless the opposing army was terrible or poorly commanded).

In the case of using cheap levies for the initial assault... that only works if the enemy:
1. Has very weak units where ur levies can 1v2 them decently(maybe not win, but could do some serious damage to them).
OR
2. If the enemy engages with only a small levie battle-line as well... making it an even fight (5 on 5).

But if the enemy sends more units of not-so-worst quality, then yeah any levie battle-line should falter quickly. Because they are out-manned, and out-qualified...

So its a tactic best used in certain situations only.

In real battles, a majority of commanders kept reserves, as the flanks were usually more important than the main line...
A weak mainline that would lose after 1 hour, may survive 45 minutes and survive the entire battle if a good flanking force hammers the enemy in time...

I mean you dont want a mainline of paper, but a line of paper-PLATES isnt bad, so to speak, as long as the flanks win.

What you say seems accurate.

[lonewolf90]

Except the Hastati were never known for winning the battles. The main function of the hastati was to have a decent force with a very large shield(and thus better natural/automatic defense) who were expendable(less training, not as valuable). And then to serve WITH the Principes as the ONE-TWO punch in battle. The Hastati-Principe main-line combo was the bread and butter of the Roman attack, with the cavalry winning the flanks and causing a massive route. And the triarii were supposed to mainly be spectators, unless bad things happened.

The hastati were much better than probably 90% of other cheap/expendable units, as they have a huge shield, and strong backup(principes) who would come in and relieve them after a few short bursts of battle.

The hastati were never meant to hold the line against very good quality units. But they held well against decent units, but still required the principes 100% of the time(unless the opposing army was terrible or poorly commanded).

In the case of using cheap levies for the initial assault... that only works if the enemy:
1. Has very weak units where ur levies can 1v2 them decently(maybe not win, but could do some serious damage to them).
OR
2. If the enemy engages with only a small levie battle-line as well... making it an even fight (5 on 5).

But if the enemy sends more units of not-so-worst quality, then yeah any levie battle-line should falter quickly. Because they are out-manned, and out-qualified...

So its a tactic best used in certain situations only.

In real battles, a majority of commanders kept reserves, as the flanks were usually more important than the main line...
A weak mainline that would lose after 1 hour, may survive 45 minutes and survive the entire battle if a good flanking force hammers the enemy in time...

I mean you dont want a mainline of paper, but a line of paper-PLATES isnt bad, so to speak, as long as the flanks win.

Just want to mention, when I face Roma in game, their bread n butter is triarii & extraordinarii troops, I usually only see 1 hastati unit within their army composition . I think generally the AI deploys around 7 elite unit within its army

[KYREAPER]

Just want to mention, when I face Roma in game, their bread n butter is triarii & extraordinarii troops, I usually only see 1 hastati unit within their army composition . I think generally the AI deploys around 7 elite unit within its army

Yeah AI Rome's army comp is absolutely stupid in this game.
I hate when i see like 8 extraordinarii troops and sometimes mostly 9 or 10 triarii....
It really turns me off when i finally fight rome after 200 turns.

[Dresden]

That is possible to mod, the problem is we can't change army templates based on reform levels. So it makes it a bit more complicated.

[KYREAPER]

That is possible to mod, the problem is we can't change army templates based on reform levels. So it makes it a bit more complicated.

I have a question. When you mod those templates, do you specifically select which units you want them to recruit?

Or is it more like "light infantry, medium infantry, heavy, very heavy, etc" like that?

Because if its the second... then i think yall need to go through and make those classifications "medium, heavy, very heavy" more accurate for each unit.

Because I remember Kam saying that those classifications were meaningless because they arent based on unit stats or anything.. but if those control how the army templates work, then maybe yall really should go in and make those accurate.

Im not a modder, so idk how it selects those units for the templates. Idk if maybe that would help.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

Hey DEI folks, been reading through this thread and I had a quick question --

Should I wait to play this version until a new fix comes out? I saw something Kam said about the battles being broken due to formation bonus exclusion. Do yall think it's playable at present or should I just hold off for a couple of days?

looking forward to trying all the new changes!

[Dresden]

I have a question. When you mod those templates, do you specifically select which units you want them to recruit?

Or is it more like "light infantry, medium infantry, heavy, very heavy, etc" like that?

Because if its the second... then i think yall need to go through and make those classifications "medium, heavy, very heavy" more accurate for each unit.

Because I remember Kam saying that those classifications were meaningless because they arent based on unit stats or anything.. but if those control how the army templates work, then maybe yall really should go in and make those accurate.

Im not a modder, so idk how it selects those units for the templates. Idk if maybe that would help.

Those are different entries. The recruitment settings have their own assignments and keys.

Hey DEI folks, been reading through this thread and I had a quick question --

Should I wait to play this version until a new fix comes out? I saw something Kam said about the battles being broken due to formation bonus exclusion. Do yall think it's playable at present or should I just hold off for a couple of days?

looking forward to trying all the new changes!

You should be fine to play it. I don't think anything is broken. KAM may have been referring to the fact that vanilla beta broke some modifiers to formations that we have had to workaround a bit, but things should function okay.

[CIaagent11]

Hey DEI folks, been reading through this thread and I had a quick question --

Should I wait to play this version until a new fix comes out? I saw something Kam said about the battles being broken due to formation bonus exclusion. Do yall think it's playable at present or should I just hold off for a couple of days?

looking forward to trying all the new changes!

I've been playing the beta for a while, and it seems fine. I get some crashes while turn loading, but next try it works. Unless you have a large amount of personal modding that you have to redo when things are updated, there's no reason to wait.

Edit: Around turn 80 now, and I'm getting near-constant end-turn crashes, which makes it unplayable. Seems I'll have to leave this be until the finalized version is released.

[leonardusius]

Hi KAM,
Recently I came upon Damage Mitigation concept for DeI. Could you tell what's it ? Searching throw db tables I saw it defined in BDR_ui_unit_stats.loc and seems to be the armour value renamed. Is it correct ? And I have another question: why on a collision charge encounter between heavy shock cavalry and heavy melee infantry, cavalry charging against braced infantry (40 cavalry vs. 160 infantry), why ALWAYS my infantry get many knocked down and always after first charge they always 100% get up. No matter what collision coeficient input; I mean even when the damage is way more than theirs health even when halved for armour issue (I know on collision half the damage is considered going on armour).
Thank you a lot.

[Inoé]

Hi All.
I've been looking for a solution but I am not being able to make this work, let's see if you gusy can help me.

I am playing R2TW in mac computer, which means I cannot use mod manager in steam. How do I install it manually so it works? Also, will it be enough if I just download the 1.2 version or do I have to download older versions and install the new ones on top? Can anyone specify which versions do I have to download?

Thank you in advance!

[Dresden]

For the Mac you need the mac submod to play the grand campaign. You would probably need patch 17 version of the mod because I dont know if mac has the patch 18 beta.