Paeninsula Italic Suggestions and Comments

[DaVinci]

Not necessarily true DaVinci! You haven't played the new patch which has economy. We can give Romans only some income bonus without having to raise their stats unrealistically!

I'll see if i playtest the patch ... i very much doubt, they can be a major player, or the major player in Italy with the current system, despite the patch changes ... .

How do you define unrealistically stats?

For me unrealistic stats are, if the Romans are inferior in the campaign outcome ... again i'll see it if i playtest the Rhaeti again with the patch applied.

[mcantu]

On that matter of historical background in combat stats:
I observed in my last playtest as the Rhaeti (played them to observe the AI in Italy etc.), that the Romans don't stand a chance, they lost in about 12 turns 2 settlments and Roma was just besieged and as well Capua as i quitted the playtest. It was obvious, that they go down to their knees within around 5 years. That was on H/H.

The reasons are mainly:
- Inferior stats of the Roman troops.
- Encircled by potencial enemies.
- No extra balance to support he Romans on their way to expand historically.

This btw., although i gave the Romans some little advantages, that i posted a few posts above (edu and some other) ... no way, that these tweaks helped ... conclusive: Roman troops need far better stats as they have now, or they will disappear very soon from the map.

Edit: Better stats as now present ... this can be only a first approach in the edu discussion, ie. also troop costs for Hastati, Principes and Triarii need to decreased, i did this in my edu above, but not enough, i guess. It needs far more balancing work to make them what they were in history. Especially, descr_strat shows atm. the same settlements for every faction. This can't stay imo., Romans need a better starting economy than their neighbors ...

i too have noticed the hyperactive AI. maybe there needs to be more rebel settlements to act as buffers between the factions (as in EB). i think across the board recruitment cost increases may help also. maybe also adjust the factions aggressiveness towards each other in descr_strat

[Aper]

Actually there's a very easy and effective way to make roman units powerful vs. AI without raising their stats : give them some secondary HPs

[DaVinci]

i too have noticed the hyperactive AI. maybe there needs to be more rebel settlements to act as buffers between the factions (as in EB). i think across the board recruitment cost increases may help also. maybe also adjust the factions aggressiveness towards each other in descr_strat

maybe also adjust the factions aggressiveness towards each other in descr_strat

I did this in regard of Romans. Also my edb has much higher costs for buildings and longer constr. times. This is only a basement.

No, it is actually the thing that the Sabine, Sabelli and Samnite factions do everything to crush the Romans from the start. Only a balance helps that Romans can afford proper armies to fight them back. Even the Etruscans allied to the romans in this playtest, so this superior faction weren't the threat for them.

This has nothing to do with unrealitic unit stats, this is campaign balancing.


EDIT

Actually there's a very easy and effective way to make roman units powerful vs. AI without raising their stats : give them some secondary HPs

True. But not the right way to give the Roman human player still a challenge.

No, the Hastati, Principes and Triarii, which were just the line (manipel) infantry need just better stats, and lower costs - this is an easy balancing in the edu file. Other finetuning in camp balancing needs to be done anyway with the time.

[mcantu]

Actually there's a very easy and effective way to make roman units powerful vs. AI without raising their stats : give them some secondary HPs

thats about the most unbalancing thing i can think of.

[DaVinci]

thats about the most unbalancing thing i can think of.

It would render the Romans played as human player an too easy going, and in this sense an unbalancing effect, yes.

A challenge must stay of course for the Romans as human player.

It will be there anyway, as the engine tends to let the world come over you as human player, from H camp difficulty, on VH the most of course, but also due on M, just always.

EDIT

All my post here ... is just my view of balancing. Nobody needs to follow it. I'll do my own tweaks on this superb mod anyway ... or, if Hister or the other team leaders allow me, i'll make a campaign balance on the upcoming patch ...lol... for you to judge then later, and apply or trash.

[Hister]

Okey, everything else but not making more rebel areas! Current situation is representation of what regions those factions actually controlled at the time.

[Aper]

again, why are stats being changed to try and get a desired result in custom battles that will not be applicable in campaign battles? why not try hoplite vs hoplite custom battle or hoplite vs (a stronger unit)?

I just want hoplites engage frontally swordmen, what's wrong in it?

And all the discussion about hoplites superior stats is quite pointless, because a little +2 in attack delay make them equal in performance to apparently inferior units. The only purpouse of some boni of hoplite is to persuade them they are stronger than the enemy, so that they don't try nonsensical moves.

About Romans : I never said I will not raise their stats, you guys JUST DON'T GIVE ME THE TIME. I've a real life too. And if it's good to give some sec HPs, that have no effect on played battles, to units currently underpowered in auto-calc, why it's so bad use the same principle to give roman units stronger fangs in AI vs. AI wars? To make them perform better than their neighbours in the strategic map? Romans were not paticularly superior to their enemies in economy culture or whatever AFAIK, they had better armies, but simply give their units a point or two in some stats it's a quite unpredictable way to portrait this superiority IMHO, and the AI idiocy can waste this advantage, so it's easier to use the method explained by Aradan in the EDU guide : give all units some sec HPs, and a bit more to units you want perform better in autocalc (legionaries for example), a bit less to units that in autocalc are overpowered (like phalanxes).

About my work : I first tweak the stats of unit, THEN test them in 1 vs. 1 custom battles, THEN test the balance of the campaign. If you know a way to make the testing work faster, please tell me, thanks. Otherwise, why speak of multiple versions or minimods when the basics stats of units are still in discussion??

And since it's a waste of time and energy to have many people doing the same work each in his own way, WHO actually is that is improving EDU? If you want to wait, try and judge my tweaks I'll do this, otherwise if someone else is willing to take this responsibility, I'll comfortably wait the release and if I'll be not satisfied I'll do my mini-mod ; just to not waste precious time that I have no more.

[mcantu]

oh, sorry. i thought you were talking about primary HPs...whoops

[DaVinci]

I just want hoplites engage frontally swordmen, what's wrong in it?

And all the discussion about hoplites superior stats is quite pointless, because a little +2 in attack delay make them equal in performance to apparently inferior units. The only purpouse of some boni of hoplite is to persuade them they are stronger than the enemy, so that they don't try nonsensical moves.

About Romans : I never said I will not raise their stats, you guys JUST DON'T GIVE ME THE TIME. I've a real life too. And if it's good to give some sec HPs, that have no effect on played battles, to units currently underpowered in auto-calc, why it's so bad use the same principle to give roman units stronger fangs in AI vs. AI wars? To make them perform better than their neighbours in the strategic map? Romans were not paticularly superior to their enemies in economy culture or whatever AFAIK, they had better armies, but simply give their units a point or two in some stats it's a quite unpredictable way to portrait this superiority IMHO, and the AI idiocy can waste this advantage, so it's easier to use the method explained by Aradan in the EDU guide : give all units some sec HPs, and a bit more to units you want perform better in autocalc (legionaries for example), a bit less to units that in autocalc are overpowered (like phalanxes).

About my work : I first tweak the stats of unit, THEN test them in 1 vs. 1 custom battles, THEN test the balance of the campaign. If you know a way to make the testing work faster, please tell me, thanks. Otherwise, why speak of multiple versions or minimods when the basics stats of units are still in discussion??

And since it's a waste of time and energy to have many people doing the same work each in his own way, WHO actually is that is improving EDU? If you want to wait, try and judge my tweaks I'll do this, otherwise if someone else is willing to take this responsibility, I'll comfortably wait the release and if I'll be not satisfied I'll do my mini-mod ; just to not waste precious time that I have no more.

I take it that you're upset cause of my comment of doing eventually a balancing on the upcoming patch.
Nobody said, your work is a waiste. You are the edu maker of this mod, nobody will take this task from you.
If i do any edu changes on the then resulting public edu design, then they would go into my own personal PI version in the first place!
All other edu tweaks, that i would prefer as consideration, i suggested here in this discussion to give input and not release a minimod or similar or a competion to your work.
And only if i observe on my camp testing, that Romans go down easily, then i would code/suggest a few tweaks in edu to help them a bit more for a patch tweak.
Important, if i speak of campaign balancing, then this isn't the edu alone, it is by a large portion the descr_strat and the edb.

What is the hp system concrete, that you suggest? You mean you wanna give multiple hp to certain units, right? Imo., this makes sense only if a mod is a factionmod, means the player plays vs. AI only, and to give this then an extra challenge.

[Hister]

Aper, YOU ARE THE MEN FOR THE EDU TASK! Opinions of others can be regarded as suggestions to make your job better/easier. You don't actually have to do all that is suggested

Thanx again mate!

[DaVinci]

Ups, i missed it: sec hp. But afaik, this stat makes no difference. Does the sec hp stat influence the health of a unit. I thought this is only due for elephants and for chariots.

; stat_health Hit points of man, followed by hit points of mount or attached animal (if applicable)
; Ridden horses and camels do not have separate hit points

... bold is for elephants and chariots.

[Hister]

No DaVinci: secondary health stat influences all unit types and is a great tool for balancing the autoaclculated battles and thus campaigns!

[DaVinci]

No DaVinci: secondary health stat influences all unit types and is a great tool for balancing the autoaclculated battles and thus campaigns!

Aha, must be a discovery against the CA edu instructions then.
Never saw this applied, afaik. But i have to look into edu's done by Aradan deeper, obviously.

Edit: Ok, i see it in VI2's edu. Very good idea then, just raise it for the Romans ... lol.

[Hister]

According to aradan's guide:

Balancing auto-resolve

The second value of stat_health can be used to improve the balance of auto-resolve. Certain units like chariots are currently overpowered in it, while other like mounted and missile units are underpowered. Here follow some rough suggestions on how to assign sec hp values in order to balance auto-resolve more evenly:

• Animal units stay as they are.
• All other units get 5 sec hps.
• Units with 2 or more prim hps get -1 sec hp for each extra prim one.
• Missile units with low-medium missile attack get +1 sec hp.
• Missile units with medium-high missile attack get +2 sec hps.
• Mounted units with low-medium charge get +1 sec hp.
• Mounted units with medium-high charge get +2 sec hps.

[Aper]

I take it that you're upset cause of my comment of doing eventually a balancing on the upcoming patch.
Nobody said, your work is a waiste. You are the edu maker of this mod, nobody will take this task from you.
If i do any edu changes on the then resulting public edu design, then they would go into my own personal PI version in the first place!
All other edu tweaks, that i would prefer as consideration, i suggested here in this discussion to give input and not release a minimod or similar or a competion to your work.
And only if i observe on my camp testing, that Romans go down easily, then i would code/suggest a few tweaks in edu to help them a bit more for a patch tweak.
Important, if i speak of campaign balancing, then this isn't the edu alone, it is by a large portion the descr_strat and the edb.

What is the hp system concrete, that you suggest? You mean you wanna give multiple hp to certain units, right? Imo., this makes sense only if a mod is a factionmod, means the player plays vs. AI only, and to give this then an extra challenge.

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88859

Here is explained a method to change the strenght of units in Auto-Calculated battles without affecting Human vs. AI battles actually played on the battleground, and it's the best method to balance the outcome of AI vs. AI wars AFAIK.
Suggestion are greatly welcome, but give me the time to release something before testing and judge! If you test an old EDU, and then I release a new one completely different, it's a waste of time for you : actually, I'm doing a major overhaul of my old system, and this because of the mystakes of my old approach you and mcantu have noticed in the last pages ... so as you see the opinions you guys expressed are very valuable to me , I only need some time to make them effective

[DaVinci]

Aper

--

Here follow some rough suggestions on how to assign sec hp values in order to balance auto-resolve more evenly:

* Animal units stay as they are.
* All other units get 5 sec hps.
* Units with 2 or more prim hps get -1 sec hp for each extra prim one.
* Missile units with low-medium missile attack get +1 sec hp.
* Missile units with medium-high missile attack get +2 sec hps.
* Mounted units with low-medium charge get +1 sec hp.
* Mounted units with medium-high charge get +2 sec hps.

This listed suggestion is just one way, and as he said a rough model. It all depends then on the intended/desired camp balancing, respectively a wished AI support.

In this system, as said, Romans should get always a bit more than the other factions, if PI shall get the approach of a historical outcome support in regard of the AI gameplay. Again, my opinion only.

[Hister]

And i support your view DaVinci!

[Aper]

This means something like roman heavy infantry getting 6 sec HPs instead of normal 5, if we decide to use this system, right?

[DaVinci]

I would go probable with 7 for Roman line infantry: Hastati, Principes, Triarii ..., all other same as the common system that you will apply, in the hope the Roman AI will recruit these units at most ... but this could be supported by just an easier access via train costs and eventually an edb recruitment system different to the one that is applied now).

Btw., i found one bug in edu: Rhaeti Lancearii have only 20 men instead of 40.