Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 277

Thread: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

  1. #121

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Do all units rally always one time before being routed again? Could it be possible to modify units for it to be less likely for a rally? Some battles feel awkward when 3 quarters of the opposing army takes flight before rallying again.

    Also, is there any way to increase the increase speed of fast forward? It's so slow compared to m2tw!

  2. #122

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    I have been giving this some thought for a couple weeks now. Players should not be able to build siege units. I know I exploit this all the time. I will build a legion and give it a single onager; with two such legions working in concert I can just steamroll through virtually any province. I do this with EVERY legion. This single unit undoes all the hard work and thought that has been put into making a system that reflects historic reality. No need to siege at all, just move up and auto resolve in a single turn.

    I like having scorpions as infantry support weapons. Keep those in the game but make them impotent against walls. If you want to keep torsion weapons, make them the same as ladders and rams: buildable during the siege. There really is no reason to treat them differently than other siege engines built on site. Then a player can have fun fighting it out using them, or auto resolve after a few turns of siege.

    I wonder what others think about this proposal.

  3. #123

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Zom View Post
    I have been giving this some thought for a couple weeks now. Players should not be able to build siege units. I know I exploit this all the time. I will build a legion and give it a single onager; with two such legions working in concert I can just steamroll through virtually any province. I do this with EVERY legion. This single unit undoes all the hard work and thought that has been put into making a system that reflects historic reality. No need to siege at all, just move up and auto resolve in a single turn.

    I like having scorpions as infantry support weapons. Keep those in the game but make them impotent against walls. If you want to keep torsion weapons, make them the same as ladders and rams: buildable during the siege. There really is no reason to treat them differently than other siege engines built on site. Then a player can have fun fighting it out using them, or auto resolve after a few turns of siege.

    I wonder what others think about this proposal.
    I do agree with you. One should not be allowed to recruit artillery units regularly. It is an exploit, and it doesn't make much sense historically either.

  4. #124

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    It is an exploit, and it doesn't make much sense historically either.
    That's simply not true! Each legion had on average 10 onagers always with them.

  5. #125

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Augustus_Rex View Post
    That's simply not true! Each legion had on average 10 onagers always with them.
    Yes, they carried onagers IN PIECES that had to be assembled when beginning a siege. Shouldn't the game reflect that?

    For our purposes carrying fully assembled onagers cannot be justified by either history nor game play balance. Ballistae and scorpions, yes. Massive torsion weapons capable of bringing down walls? Mmmmmm....

  6. #126

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    So historicaly the legions weren't allowed to build those torsion weapons in advance of an open field battle? Interesting.....

    Balancewise you might be right but historicaly I think not.

  7. #127
    KAM 2150's Avatar Artifex
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Gdańsk, Poland
    Posts
    11,132

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Onagers were not introduced until around 4th century AD.

    What you guys mean are small weapons like scorpions. They can be carried on a small cart and assembled rather fast.
    Official DeI Instagram Account! https://www.instagram.com/divideetimperamod/
    Official DeI Facebook Page! https://www.facebook.com/divideetimperamod

  8. #128

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Even the scorpion, at least the upright heavy rock throwing version, wasn't introduced until the 1st century BCE and wasn't adapted to the cheiroballistra until the 1st century CE.

    Early scorpions were just Roman modifications of ballistae, and were rarely if ever able to bring down walls. They were more often used to cover soldiers in siege towers and ladders, and those building ramps or manning rams.

  9. #129

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Augustus_Rex View Post
    So historicaly [sic] the legions weren't allowed to build those torsion weapons in advance of an open field battle? Interesting.....
    So you think onagers would be useful in the open field? Interesting.
    Last edited by Zom; August 20, 2018 at 03:26 PM.

  10. #130

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Group them and you will wreck havoc in a dense formation especially with special ammunition like incendiary stuff.

    But enough of that in this thread. If you think it isn't historically accurate then read something about the use of artillery in the roman or any other army from that period.

  11. #131

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Augustus_Rex View Post
    Group them and you will wreck havoc in a dense formation especially with special ammunition like incendiary stuff.
    I am not familiar with a battle where that happened. Perhaps you can help me out. When was this?

    But enough of that in this thread. If you think it isn't historically accurate then read something about the use of artillery in the roman or any other army from that period.
    I will happily read something... can you make a suggestion? If I am wrong about this I want to know.

    BTW, to what period do you refer?

  12. #132

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    On another topic.

    Why must Carthage destroy and rebuild Roman roads to gain full benefits? Roads are roads, and pavement is pavement. Same question about aqueducts.

    I understand why Carthage should not be able to continue improving Roman roads and aqueducts. That is fine. But why must Carthage, or anyone else, strip the pavement and start from scratch?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20180820170207_1.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	407.8 KB 
ID:	354642

  13. #133

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Personally, I agree with Zom that onagers and all weapons capable of bringing down walls on their own through sustained rock firing should be removed. They're completely ahistorical to the time and massively unbalance the gameplay.

    Most factions should start able to recruit ballistae, with the Romans able to unlock the more powerful and accurate scorpion and the cherioballista around the time of the Augustan reforms. Those should be strong antipersonnel weapons, with particular suppression penalties for ranged attack, but not able to do more than minor damage to walls. Possibly able to bring down walls which have already been damaged by a prolonged siege escalation, but not undamaged ones.

  14. #134

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    @ Zom

    This is from a roman governor about a battle against Alanic tribesmen. He used his artillery to break up the enemy formation from afar. http://s_van_dorst.tripod.com/Ancien...s/ektaxis.html

    Artillery was also used by Alexander at the battle of Jaxartes.

    I was mostly refering to the time of the imperial roman armies but as you can see above artillery has been used long before. As for the incendiary ammunition I have no examples for open field battles, with that I was more thinking about their use in the game.

  15. #135

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Will there be a submode Slower Battles? And if so, when?

  16. #136
    _Tyr_'s Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    100

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Personally, I agree with Zom that onagers and all weapons capable of bringing down walls on their own through sustained rock firing should be removed. They're completely ahistorical to the time and massively unbalance the gameplay.

    Most factions should start able to recruit ballistae, with the Romans able to unlock the more powerful and accurate scorpion and the cherioballista around the time of the Augustan reforms. Those should be strong antipersonnel weapons, with particular suppression penalties for ranged attack, but not able to do more than minor damage to walls. Possibly able to bring down walls which have already been damaged by a prolonged siege escalation, but not undamaged ones.
    Totally agree with you Swarbs (also in the other thread regarding granaries btw).
    As far as I know, even onagers are mainly anti-personnel weapons and not, like in every Total War game there is, siege to bring down walls. I think the first non-gunpowder siege weapon which could effectively break walls was the trebuchet and we all know when that appeared. In antiquity the most common siege tactics were either
    - storming the walls/ gates with ladders, siege towers and rams,
    - starving the enemy out for a long time, which could include building circumvallations,
    - digging tunnels to break walls,
    - building earthen ramparts up to the walls or
    - bribe or coerce someone within the enemy walls to, for example, open a gate for you, i.e. treason, treachery, betrayal.

    Unfortunately for entertainment and a faster campaign pace sake, CA never reflected that accurately.
    So I absolutely would love to see a change there as well. And having the ability to build siege weapons (especially as the Romans) before a field battle as well, would be insanely awesome btw. I was never a big fan of CA's approach of having siege as a standalone unit within your army, that makes you slow and takes up space better used for manpower (which is why I almost never used/ use them). Maybe that could be something to unlock with army traditions?
    Last edited by _Tyr_; August 21, 2018 at 04:15 AM.

  17. #137

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Augustus_Rex View Post
    @ Zom

    This is from a roman governor about a battle against Alanic tribesmen. He used his artillery to break up the enemy formation from afar. http://s_van_dorst.tripod.com/Ancien...s/ektaxis.html

    Artillery was also used by Alexander at the battle of Jaxartes.

    I was mostly refering to the time of the imperial roman armies but as you can see above artillery has been used long before. As for the incendiary ammunition I have no examples for open field battles, with that I was more thinking about their use in the game.
    Flavius Arrianus fought the Alans in 135CE, so that source is over 100 years outside the time scale of the mod. Even then, the artillery was ballista and scorpions, not the later onagers.

    The artillery used by Alexander was also exclusively ballista style, firing bolts.

    "Alexander’s torsion oxybeles firing a 27-inch bolt could penetrate a Scythian shield at four hundred yards"

    https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/da...ncient-greece/

    Artillery was widely used in field battles by the Greeks and Romans, but onagers and medieval style catapults were only developed much later.

  18. #138

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Quote Originally Posted by _Tyr_ View Post
    Totally agree with you Swarbs (also in the other thread regarding granaries btw).
    As far as I know, even onagers are mainly anti-personnel weapons and not, like in every Total War game there is, siege to bring down walls. I think the first non-gunpowder siege weapon which could effectively break walls was the trebuchet and we all know when that appeared. In antiquity the most common siege tactics were either
    - storming the walls/ gates with ladders, siege towers and rams,
    - starving the enemy out for a long time, which could include building circumvallations,
    - digging tunnels to break walls,
    - building earthen ramparts up to the walls or
    - bribe or coerce someone within the enemy walls to, for example, open a gate for you, i.e. treason, treachery, betrayal.

    Unfortunately for entertainment and a faster campaign pace sake, CA never reflected that accurately.
    So I absolutely would love to see a change there as well. And having the ability to build siege weapons (especially as the Romans) before a field battle as well, would be insanely awesome btw. I was never a big fan of CA's approach of having siege as a standalone unit within your army, that makes you slow and takes up space better used for manpower (which is why I almost never used/ use them). Maybe that could be something to unlock with army traditions?
    I think onagers were used for both, but primarily as a siege weapon to reduce walls and towers. De re militari mentions the Roman armies of the 4th century using them against cities, usually the fortified Persian cities during the Sassanid wars. Although they could, and were, also used in field battles when the stones were set alight and used to disrupt formations. But they already had scorpions by then, which were more accurate and deadly, so the onager wasn't needed as much for that purpose.

    Regardless, as KAM pointed out, this wasn't until the 4th century and later. Before that, the siege engines were the arrow and smaller stone firing ballistae, and the scorpion and cherioballista the Romans developed from them. These were ineffective against all but the most basic palisades.

    So the main question is whether to keep ballistae as a standalone unit, or add the option to include forms of them in armies, possibly as a upgrade or a specialised army tradition. Not sure what will be easier for the mods to include, a tradition would be cool, but dunno if the engine will lend itself to that.

  19. #139

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Swarbs View Post
    So the main question is whether to keep ballistae as a standalone unit, or add the option to include forms of them in armies, possibly as a upgrade or a specialised army tradition. Not sure what will be easier for the mods to include, a tradition would be cool, but dunno if the engine will lend itself to that.
    Beginning of the game start with being able to build ballistae. Research a military tech that unlocks scorpions and cherioballistae.

  20. #140
    texoman81's Avatar Ducenarius
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    979

    Default Re: [Feedback] Suggestions & Improvements thread

    This is a good example of how people get history wrong. There is a lot to unpack here but i'll give it a shot. Having multiple full stacks with siege weapons can cause steamrolling. So we start with an idea that has some merit, though more from a gameplay perspective than historical, then morphs into making walls impregnable until the advent of gunpowder. The terminology can get confusing since it is used differently depending on the people and time, so its better to use modern definitions when discussing siege weapons. Ancient siege weapons were often disassembled to transport, but were also moved on carts or attached to ships or mobile siege towers.

    Ok so onagers were torsion powered siege engine developed by Rome in the 4th century AD, BUT they weren't more powerful than previous torsion powered siege engines. Onagers were actually simplified by having one arm instead of two. This means they were actually less powerful but easier to build and assemble which made them more common. Torsion powered siege weapons were developed by Phillip II and modified by his son Alexander the Great to fire stones. Some claim that Athens actually invented torsion powered siege even earlier. Alexander's catapults could fire stones up to 145 lbs (65.5 kg). Later Macedonian siege weapons increased this to 175 lbs (80 kg). They were definitely capable of damaging walls! Other Greeks also made advancement in siege weapons, especially Rhodes, Pergamon and Syracuse. Rome relied on Greek siege engineers early on.

    Another point is large bolts could actually cause damage to gates or walls. We are also overlooking battering rams which are much older and could take down a gate or even a section of the wall itself.
    Last edited by texoman81; August 21, 2018 at 12:09 PM.

Posting Permissions

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