[Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests

[Jake Armitage]

Nope, I'll find it out, might be there is something conceptually interesting to adapt via script.

[KAM 2150]

It just means that generals have recruitment coded to their class and you can recruit any units at any place. This means there is no AoR and your general A can't use heavy cavalry because he is Strategist and not Vanguard class general. All in all, total BS.

[Jake Armitage]

Ah.

[Principe.demonio]

Hi. Everytime i add archers to my armies i feel bad. They only have 15 of ammunition, usually i end up with around 50 deaths if i shot to the front. Well this is very sad, please fix the ammunition to 20 in landbattles and 25 in sieges (defenders). They are pretty worthless right now, specially in sieges where defender have less funds and have to use the defensive positions to place archers to compensate... Really, i don't know why did you think of reduce the ammunition but is incorrect.

[Principe.demonio]

Ah, and also increase the amount of javelins for peltast, etc. in every range unit so far.

[KAM 2150]

No. You have a lot of perks and skills for that. Most people find ranged units overpowered. I would rather make them weaker than stronger. You need to have late game in mind (where you can get even 30-50 arrows depending on culture) and also unit quality. At that stage you easily get 150-300 kills per ranged unit.

If you expect levy archers to deal a lot of casualties when targetting unit with large shield frontally...well you wont get results.

Now if you take proper ranged unit like Cretan archers, result will be different.

Ranged units are to make enemies weaker, not do actual kills. Game uses HP system so that 50 kills might have another 50 kills deal on overall damage, which heavily criples enemy troops. To give you an example, in Warhammer TW you can see unit HP live, you can sometimes see unit dropping 40% of total HP but with only few kills. This means that ranged unit did actually HUGE damage, just spread over entire unit.

You example with siege budget does not make sense at all. Campaign has not such things.

[CadetNewb]

Frontally, shielded units will block most projectiles. However, if you shoot them from their right side (the one that's holding the weapon) or the back, they'll rack up kills really fast.

[Dardo21]

Archers can pretty easily rack over 150-200 kills depending on how you position them.

[Principe.demonio]

​Well, first of all i'm talking about custom battles not about the campaign..

You may be able to get more ammunition on late game in your campaign but that is not the case in multiplayer games. What is the point of getting archers if you can't route kill units, only decrease their health... i just use 1100 found of sagitarii in another melee unit that can actually deal with the enemy for itself.

In custom battles you need to increase the ammunition +33% (20 shots) at least. In sieges the defenfer must have any advantage or they always lose because of less founds. So you need to get even more ammunition for your ranged units or moral boost in rally points or something. I almost never see defenders win a siege, i wonder why.

Thank you for reading the suggestions.

[Ptolemaios Soter]

Ooo, can I take this as an opportunity to request another missile debuff? Archers especially but all ranged units seem to do way too much damage, particularly AP. Increasing missile block chance and lowering AP would help.

This has been litigated almost as much as pikes, so I don’t expect a change...

[Wittman]

Are the Seleucid thorax swordsman and spearman removed from the roster since the new update or...?

[Xeksirt]

It just means that generals have recruitment coded to their class and you can recruit any units at any place. This means there is no AoR and your general A can't use heavy cavalry because he is Strategist and not Vanguard class general. All in all, total BS.

gee, i guess i did need to clarify. I would love a mod to make units recruitment process slower, ie take 2-4 turns to be at 100%
.,

[lucamafra]

Hi there! I'm not sure if this is the correct place do post this, but here it goes.


I've come to realise that I only enjoy the early game of any Total War. And particularly starting with a single settlement faction. To me, this is by far the most fun part. I don't quite get invested when starting play as a relatively large kingdom etc.


As I'm sure is the case with quite a few of the people here, I am fascinated by the Makedonian phenomenon and have played many times with the faction. Believe it or not, I'm only now playing the Macedonian Wars campaign and am enjoying it so far (as is the case with everything you guys release).


The thing is, I was thinking it would be awesome to play as Philip II just as he inherited the throne in 359 BCE. That, of course, would require a campaign set on the Wrath of Sparta DLC scenario and so the idea of using the Augustus campaign as a base is not applicable.


Is there any interest from experienced modders to make a submod like this?


If not, can anyone point me to resources that teach how to mod Rome 2 and DeI?


Thanks in advance,
Cheers

[chriswhr]

Idea:
Just like how the DEI team changed WoS for the Macedonian Wars, how about changing Empire Divided for a "Fall of Rome" set in the Attila time setting. We can have the huns, WRE, ERE, etc...

[Showdown]

Low hopes for this, but have you ever thought about adding new voice acting to the game? I find the barbarian and eastern voices in Rome 2 atrocious.

[Ptolemaios Soter]

I’d like to suggest a change to barbarian shield wall. The formation functions fine enough in battle. Am I correct that it’s based on the phalanx formation with different effects on stats? Visually, it looks ridiculous with in some cases the 3rd through 5th ranks with their sica or sword slanted vertically like a pike. The front rows slowly stabbing with their curved swords. Even in units with spears, the formation just looks terribly out of place.

Given that we have a working shield wall in Rome’s disciplined formation, why not use that as the base for barbarians? The stat buffs/debuffs could be different from Rome of course to reflect the latter’s greater discipline, etc. I think it would better match how the units actually fought and would vastly improve visual immersion. It would also help address what currently feels like every unit is modeled after Greek warfare.

Some folks might complain about decreased frontage, but honestly they can learn to manage ranks before the battle to form and maintain their line. Or deal with it since barbarians in shield wall would indeed have had significantly reduced frontage compared to the more loosely spaced default formation.

[Basilius]

Activating the "original WoS campaign" official DEI submod causes my game to crash when I play a campaign. You may want to take a look Dresden.

[Goffredo85]

will it be possible to add a reduction of attrition to the encampent stance?
and what about altering one of the post battle options about prisoners to grant a small boost to replenishment as to simulate wounded recovering?

[chriswhr]

Activating the "original WoS campaign" official DEI submod causes my game to crash when I play a campaign. You may want to take a look Dresden.

Do you mean the Grand campaign? I also experience this, but there is no problem playing the original WoS campaign.

[NorthernXY]

What is the modifier "Political Favour: Time to secure a political advantage"? No idea how to use it.

Are Makedonian late generals suppose to be worse than the early? Their stats are equal or less, don't have "disciplined" ability like early do, can't form a wedge, has ammunition but no skirmisher mode, and oddly have "poor morale" vs. early's "good morale". The last one I find really weird because you'd think soldiers with poor morale would never be selected to be in a king's/general's elite bodyguards. In addition to costing about 25% in upkeep.

Fortified Rhodos capital building makes more money than the commercial. Rhodos tier III dock makes ~1800 while tier IV makes ~800, same food production. I think it's the same for Carthage. Krete's tier III commercial makes more than fortified, but tier IV makes less. The other differences like 0.8 more population growth, more fish, and one causing banditry increase (comm) vs one combating it (fort), don't seem to make it commercial the viable choice.

Also on Rhodos it says I have no valid recruitment point even after building a new barracks.