Page 190 of 261 FirstFirst ... 90 140 165 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 215 240 ... LastLast
Results 3,781 to 3,800 of 5203

Thread: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

  1. #3781
    Libertus
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    HELLAS
    Posts
    62

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Hello Team i will like to suggest for ports to have AOR naval unites like Knossos(cretean archers),Rhodes(slingers) ect. is this possible?

  2. #3782

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    They exist, not sure how they are spread throughout the map, you can check the AOR guide in the stickies for that, they are also often recruitable as mercenary ships.

  3. #3783
    ♔Greek Strategos♔'s Avatar Bearded Moderation
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Athens-Greece
    Posts
    8,425

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Αlready included. I'm 100% sure about their Mercenary form. Not sure about them as AOR as @Dardo already mentioned.

  4. #3784

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Quote Originally Posted by Dresden View Post
    The backgrounds can be found in part 2 of the mod under:
    /ui/skins/default/
    fe_backdrop_emperor
    fe_backdrop_hannibal
    fe_backdrop_sparta
    etc
    Dresden, thanks for the timely help and link, where to look for these png files

  5. #3785

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Quick question:

    Is armor penetration included in weapon damage? For example, if a sword unit is 20 damage and 4 armor pen, then do they do 24 damage total? Or does it mean that 4 of that 20 damage goes through armor?

  6. #3786
    KAM 2150's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Gdańsk, Poland
    Posts
    9,676

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    If it has 20 damage and 4 armour pen, it has 24 damage in total if there is 0 armour. 4 armour pen will be always applied, no matter if armour is 1 or 1000 while 20 will be lowered depending on how the game will do the dice roll (higher armour will be able to block more).

  7. #3787

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Quote Originally Posted by vbus View Post
    AOR, yes. Hahaha, I thought so because that's how all the other romanized units I've seen so far seem to be designed vs their AOR counterparts (sardinian archers, scutarii, cantabrian axemen, numidian cavalry etc), they have higher morale and higher upkeep, only the KH Thorakitai are different, so I thought it might have been an oversight
    It likely is. We'll look into it.

  8. #3788
    TheRomanRuler's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,949

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    I think skirmisher units, archers and slingers at least, are too strong atm. Armor and shield seem pointless. Skirmishers were almost always used because they could kill enemies while taking less casualties for yourself, but they would not be ones who actually did most of the killing or won the battles.
    Romans were famous for adopting weapons used against them. If missiles would be so overpowered and shields so useless, they would have gotten rid of the shields and started using bows and cavalry, with melee infantry being reduced to bare minimum. But that never happened, because all nations realized importance of melee infantry. Even huns and other archer and cavalry heavy factions eventually started using heavy infantry. Alexander could never have achieved so much against his missile heavy enemies if his pikes and horses would have been as woulnerable to missiles as they are in the game.

    But i am trying slower battles sub mod to see if that makes a difference.

  9. #3789

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Yes those units are fine, but why not allow them to have the other Spanish rosters as they take the territory? Would give them a lot of depth. I'm sorry but if I play such a difficult campaign I want those heavy spearmen.

  10. #3790
    TheRomanRuler's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,949

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Also about earlier Legion vs Phalanx discussion, remember that early Romans fought in Phalanx before they switched to Hastati Spearmen, Principes Spearmen and Triarii Hoplites which are in the mod as early Roman units. And then they kept changing. So clearly Romans found something that works and had reasons to move away from Hoplite Phalanxes. I believe reason was simply flexibility. Legionnaires could do far more things than pikemen. Legionnaires did not actually have all that heavy armor, so i think they could have even performed simple skirmishing a little, just like Line infantry of Napoleonic wars sometimes did skirmishing in loose order.
    Legionnaires were also superior at siege warfare compared to Phalanxes, even if Phalanxes would have been trained for siege as well as Legionnaires, they simply did not have ideal equipment for it and had to abandon their spear/pike, aka their primary weapon. Unless they would fall back to the streets, but in real life defenders usually had less men and it was advantage to hold the walls, where pikes or spears were far less useful than swords. Pikemen or spearmen had to divide their time between spear and sword, and with spear being primary weapon that is what they would have trained more i think. And even though there were better soldiers for single combat than Romans, i think Romans were better at single combat than Hoplites or Pikemen.
    Field battles were not really decided by cavalry. You could decide them with cavalry, but in general they only ended once infantry had been defeated. You could defeat infantry with cavalry, but if cavalry is defeated battle can go on. Cavalry though cant fight without infantry, unless they have something like superior light cavalry and horse archers and room to stay mobile. In warfare, you need to hold objectives. Even in modern warfare you still need infantry. But pikemen are infantry too right? Well yes. But you can't always choose where you want to fight. If Romans avoid battle and go siege your cities and build fortifications like at Alesia, sword and shield and javelin armed legionnaires have advantage over pike and hoplite armies, of whom only portion are swordsmen.
    At their best, i think legions would have been weaker than phalanx armies. But at their worst they were propably better than pike armies at their worst. Which mattered a lot, unit or army quality could vary a lot during the war. Altough i am sure that when your levy pikemen manage to not run away and are not at risk of being outflanked, they would defeat any frontal levy legionnaires.
    I will make very careful guess that might well be wrong that legionnaires were also somewhat better when lead by bad generals than pikemen with bad generals. But i have no real idea if that is true or not. But in video games where we dont need to think about many of the real life scenarios, levy pikemen are far superior to any levy sword units.




    Also it would be brilliant to have a choice (sub mod propably) where you can always keep most of the old units even if you get reforms. Would it cause balance problems? And what units would cause problems?

  11. #3791

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    I will elaborate in a bit here, but I just had to point out and laugh at, " legionnaires did not have relatively heavy armor".

  12. #3792

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    LOL "i think Romans were better at single combat than Hoplites or Pikemen."
    -No one fought in single combat on a battlefield. They fought with battle-lines and strategic flanking.

    Hoplite warfare is designed for hammer/anvil tactics. its not designed to just win by itself from the front. Sure, if you match a unit of hoplites up against a foe in single unit combat, someone is going to win. And sure, the hoplites very much could win. It doesnt mean the Hoplite unit was designed for single combat.

    Legionnaires were more adaptable than pikes/hoplites, but that does not make them truly better. Better at what? Better at being adaptable, mobile, able to flank? Sure. Better on walls? Sure, a sword is a much more adaptable weapon than a spear. And loose formation is also much more adaptable and mobile than tight formation(formations such as a pike or spear phalanx are considered variations of tight formation).

    Better at pure frontal combat? No. Better at defense and outlasting an opponent? No.

    Why did phalanx warfare die out and be replaced by lighter troops and more adaptability? Because people finally realized that you cant always choose the perfect battlefield when you find yourself in a fight.
    Phalanx warfare requires strategic planning, positioning, and an open field to do battle.
    -Its not conducive to sieging cities. You need troops that dont require a formation for their primary fighting. You need troops that can do more than one thing... even if a phalanx troop can do that one thing super well, that makes it easy to counter. That makes it predictable.

    In a head2head fight nose2nose a phalanx is better than legionnaires.
    In a defensive battle where you have positioned yourself so that you cant be flanked(where your flank are secured) a phalanx is better. It will hold out longer than a legionnaire unit.
    Locking shields and having a longer reach weapon to keep your enemy at a distance keeps your men from getting harmed, which keeps the entire unit lasting longer.
    Locking shields and having a short sword designed for thrusting is better for defense than most other formations(except a phalanx) however it allows the enemy to get close, which allows for more soldiers to get struck when outnumbered and die.. which makes a sword phalanx worst at its job than a spear phalanx.

    Even in a non-formation fight, more range is typically better.... unless its TOO MUCH range.
    Having a slight reach advantage in combat is better, but having too much reach makes you automatically overextend.

    Anyone who has trained in defensive martial arts knows this. Its extremely easy to counter attack someone by hand-deflecting and sidestepping which now puts the enemy in a position of overextension(such as thrusting a spear). Thrusting a shortsword doesnt provide as much overextension and is easier to recover from if a thrust misses. A spear has to come back FURTHER, which takes LONGER, which gives the enemy more time to complete a counter attack. However, in order to complete a counter attack, the enemy must close the distance, which has to be done by side-stepping, ducking, or redirecting. Except, if you are fighting a phalanx, you cannot just sidestep and close the distance, because your enemy has interlocked shields and so you just sidestepped to another enemy. Theres no way to get close because of the interlocked shields, and the spears allow enough range that the hoplite 1-2 men to the side can stab you(if the man in front of you doesnt).
    ---So the hoplite phalanx and pike phalanx fix the problem of over-extension by making sure that you can overextend freely, knowing that even if you miss, your enemy cannot just sidestep you and get in close. If they try to come in close, your shield(and the shield next to you) is completely protecting your body, and theres no way around it.

    IN OPEN COMBAT, such as a lone hoplite soldier, if he overextends with a spear thrust, sure, you can sidestep either way, close the distance and get directly beside the hoplite. Once this close, the only defense left is the shield, which is very limited and heavy and forearm mounted(even less maneuverable). The spear isnt an adaptable enough weapon to just turn and shank someone who got in too close... as the weapon is too long and it becomes unwieldy THAT CLOSE. But a shortsword shines in this area; You can just twist that wrist and re-angle the trajectory and continue with a quick strike.

    So in open-spaced combat, a sword is more adaptable.
    After people found that phalanx warfare required too good of conditions to achieve success against adaptable troops, it became obsolete. Was phalanx warfare still the BEST to use in a frontal attack in great conditions? Yes.

    But when assaulting fortified positions, the conditions were never good/perfect. Being able to fight VERY EFFECTIVELY outside of formation was a must. Plus, its much easier to organize units more strategically with more maneuverable and adaptable units.
    -----

    So its not about saying Legionnaires were better than phalanx units. Because they were at some things, but worst at others.
    It depends on what the "need" is of that battle.

    It just so happened that Legionnaires met the "needs" of more situations than a phalanx did.

    If a phalanx can be properly set up, it will be the best of any formation.
    But if it cant, it starts to lose effectiveness.

    It will never be a bad formation, and nothing will ever do what a phalanx does, better than a phalanx.
    But the phalanx does not have as many effective uses as other things.

  13. #3793
    ♔Greek Strategos♔'s Avatar Bearded Moderation
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Athens-Greece
    Posts
    8,425

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRomanRuler View Post
    Also it would be brilliant to have a choice (sub mod propably) where you can always keep most of the old units even if you get reforms. Would it cause balance problems? And what units would cause problems?
    You can keep them. Just don't research the purple tech.
    Last edited by ♔Greek Strategos♔; April 24, 2018 at 06:58 PM.

  14. #3794

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Actually if you don't research it you probably won't be able to recruit either unit type.

    Follow us: Patreon -- Steam -- Forums -- Youtube - Facebook

  15. #3795
    TheRomanRuler's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,949

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    (about Legionnary armor being heavy or not) I guess it depends what you think is relative. There are many with heavier and lighter armor. But legionnaires are somewhat medium-heavy units imo.


    Kyreaper, you said same as i did. Just with different words. I agree with you.
    Last edited by TheRomanRuler; April 24, 2018 at 09:47 PM.

  16. #3796

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Quote Originally Posted by KYREAPER View Post
    Hoplite warfare is designed for hammer/anvil tactics. its not designed to just win by itself from the front.
    Epaminondas proved you wrong. But let's just assume he misused phalanx.

    Quote Originally Posted by KYREAPER View Post
    The spear isnt an adaptable enough weapon to just turn and shank someone who got in too close... as the weapon is too long and it becomes unwieldy THAT CLOSE. But a shortsword shines in this area; You can just twist that wrist and re-angle the trajectory and continue with a quick strike.
    And that's why hoplites carried sidearms like xiphos. You miss the point again.

    Quote Originally Posted by KYREAPER View Post
    But when assaulting fortified positions, the conditions were never good/perfect. Being able to fight VERY EFFECTIVELY outside of formation was a must.
    So, this is probably the reason why no city had ever been taken by force in the history of Hellenistic warfare.

    Rome had upper hand against every Hellenic or Hellenised state in its path. This a historical truth. But why do you need to invent some far-fetched reasons like "they had no swords!" to justify the defeats of greeks? There is more to warfare than swinging weapons on the battlefield and every strategic and tactic situation is unique. With that in mind, we have to consider also that after the triumph against Carthage, Rome marched east in the status of economic and politic superpower of the time.

  17. #3797
    Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    26

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Hey everybody,

    Currently playing a roman campaign, H/M, I'm having a big fight against Carthage to control the Mediteranean sea, but one thing is disturbing me : the number of armies Carthage possesses.

    They own like 6-7 fleets with 20/20 ships (each with higly skilled general and not the weakest ships, only balista ships, archers and hakim dotfaka or something like that, carthaginian hoplites).
    Which is funny is each fleet they own costs approximatively 3000-4000 golds... they own 7 so each turn just their fleets costs more than 25000 gold... ok AI is cheated we know it, + their armies (currently 4-5 full stacks too, so how can they afford their armies and fleets upkeeps ? they don't have a wide territory and wealthy ressources...

    Anyway, next.
    I can personally aford only 1 20/20 fleet and another 10/20. You would have understood it, they totally control the seas, and I just can't do anything to that, their full stacks fleets always patrol by group of 2, so 2 full stacks fleets with better ships than mine and supernumary. They use their fleets to block the seas and prevent me from atacking their capital, but also as attacking, they took over Alalia attacking with 4 20/20 fleets... obviously impossible to defend.

    --> I am a little circumspect with this number of fleets they own, is it normal in Hard difficulty ? I find it a little abused even considering the price of just 1 fleet.

  18. #3798
    FlashHeart07's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    5,828

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Major factions like carthage also recieve money from a script. Its all due to how bad the ai performs without any help. You just need to be more strategic or build up a proper empire to take them on

    Sendt fra min SM-G930F med Tapatalk

  19. #3799
    Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    26

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    So Carthage get a bonus from difficulty and the fact it is a major faction (2 bonuses ?)
    I'm just in hard difficulty, how it would be in very hard or legendary ? (12 full fleets against you who just have one ?)

  20. #3800

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    C O R V U S

Posting Permissions

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