Paeninsula Italic Suggestions and Comments

[Athenogoras]

... What do you mean specifically? Thanks

I think he means that the AI considers the edu-values in battles. If you want frontalcharges with your legionares set their attackvalure and their lethality higher than phalangites. If you want more flanking set them lower etc.
descr-mount.txt specifies the mass of the mounts. If a horse has high mass it will penetrate enemy formations better but will be more vunerable against attack since they are more surrounded. If they have scare infantry attribute(which some mods do) they will affect more enemyunits if they penetrate their formation(radiusbased).

[Aper]

I think he means that the AI considers the edu-values in battles. If you want frontalcharges with your legionares set their attackvalure and their lethality higher than phalangites. If you want more flanking set them lower etc.

If this work, it can be immensely useful. That idiotic AI always try to outflank my swordmen with hoplites, that is completely senseless.
Thanks!

[mcantu]

If this work, it can be immensely useful. That idiotic AI always try to outflank my swordmen with hoplites, that is completely senseless.
Thanks!

i've noticed that in custom battles, the AI unit will try to outflank if they are weaker than your unit.

[DaVinci]

I think he means that the AI considers the edu-values in battles. If you want frontalcharges with your legionares set their attackvalure and their lethality higher than phalangites. If you want more flanking set them lower etc.
descr-mount.txt specifies the mass of the mounts. If a horse has high mass it will penetrate enemy formations better but will be more vunerable against attack since they are more surrounded. If they have scare infantry attribute(which some mods do) they will affect more enemyunits if they penetrate their formation(radiusbased).

What Athena says ... he recently got my full faith for re-modding the ChivTW combat model (what i did always alone all the years), means a lot adjustments are in work by him to carry out the last possible AI improvements via the edu file).

It needs a lot of testing ... a strict combat coding along realism stats and a math model can't be the only goal, it is a first approach as basement, then go ahead and test test test and this from the view of the AI.

[Athenogoras]

i've noticed that in custom battles, the AI unit will try to outflank if they are weaker than your unit.

My guess is the AI considers number of units, attackvalues and lethality weather they are going frontal or flanking.
My advice is to study other mods and their battlesystems. Thats what I did.
I downloaded RTR-TIC just to study Mcantus edu.

[mcantu]

What Athena says ... he recently got my full faith for re-modding the ChivTW combat model (what i did always alone all the years), means a lot adjustments are in work by him to carry out the last possible AI improvements via the edu file).

It needs a lot of testing ... a strict combat coding along realism stats and a math model can't be the only goal, it is a first approach as basement, then go ahead and test test test and this from the view of the AI.

i strongly agree with this and its the main problem i see in the Real Combat system. the approach i take is to base the armor and shield stats off of what is shown on the skin. then i use the unit description (along with discussion with our history dept) to do the fine tuning of how a unit should perform. i also give all weapons of the same type the same lethality values...

[Hister]

Here's how armor is counted in PI:

- greaves +1
- arm protections +1
- leather or sinew head protections +1
- metal helmet +2
- perizoma +1
- metal breast plate +2
- bronze triple disc cuirass/bronze squared cuirass +3
- linotorax +3
- leather short cuirass +2
- leather cuirass +3
- reinforced linotorax +4
- lamellar cuirass +5
- short muscolar plate cuirass +5
- iron-mail cuirass +6
- muscolar plate cuirass +6

Your suggestions regarding javelin values sound good Davinci - Aper - try them!

[DaVinci]

I edited my last post.

The armour stats sound good. Eventually i wouldn't go that restricted, or not always along these stats per unit creation ... here and there a bit gameplay adjustment to balance the factions, ie. in my projects i take always the historical gameplay in high attention, for example, i wouldn't let the Roman AI come down to its knees easily due to a limitation by such a model ... or any coding models, especially in regard of all codes in any files, that have a significant AI affect.

[Hister]

Yes, you're right on the matter. But huge deviations shouldn't be applied either to avoid non realistic results!

EdiT. So about projectiles you practically suggest that we raise all javelin attacking values for one or two points, get rid of AP and decrease the range (in comparison to our current defense values). Correct?

[DaVinci]

I would reduce the range, yes, just to get a higher historical feeling.

As for the javelin values, you have indeed only a few ap for the pila guys, i would remove that, and leave it all as is.
And i think i would reduce arrow and stone to 2 attack (or indeed increase the javelin of 3 to 4).

It gets higher stats, if applied the missile building upgrades, anyway.

--

Actually, in 58bc, i removed all the smith and any other weapon upgrade building boni

Instead, if these buildings needed or wanted, these buildings could provide:

- trade income (for weapon trade)
(- eventually exp points)

The weapon upgrades indeed count in a complete other way as exp points, far stronger, and this is mentionable as a disbalance affect (or exploit), as i think, the human player always builds its constructions in a more senseful way than the AI.

In addition, i think, in this period, it isn't very historical accurate, that weapons/armour got an improvement.

[Lord Willy]

:hmmm:a few days a go i saw an eagle standard article about paenisula italica total war., and i saw some awsome images about ancient rome.it is done this amazing project or it is abandonaded?
thanks
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=109082

[Lord Willy]

:hmmm:a few days a go i saw an eagle standard article about paenisula italica total war., and i saw some awsome images about ancient rome.it is done this amazing project or it is abandonaded?
thanks
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=109082

ok thanks for the answer hister

[DaVinci]

I'll study the EDU of DaVinci

Aper, the ChivTW edu is actually designed to fit to the medieval world between 1072 and 1222 AD. So it isnot a template for the PI ancient world. But, i guess mcantu's is far better as template, because of the similar timeperiod. Also, our ChivTW edu is still in the works, the now published isn't the final product.

Shield wall: i playtested without, and Hoplites are still very superior! Hard nut to crack for every other unit. And the behavior is as well 100 % okay, they mainly hold a line, and rather not try to flank, also they charge frontal.

As for the shield value for Hastati, Principes and Triarii:
I don't see a big problem to have 1 point more for them, because the Romans started to have a military maschine at this stage, and you could understand it as a slight forced improvement of the shield construction (reinforced with metal streams at the edges etc.), just vs. Celtic and Italic, Samnite and Etruskan etc. older shield designs. The metal "industry" was in fact in the Toskanian regions (formerly Etruskan realms), which were just conquered at the time of PI by the Romans (or at the start still Etruskan), but the Romans did everything a tag better than the Etruskans by learning from them, of course.

Other thing:
Pila range for the Hastati and Principes: i would increase it to 30, only for them. This will help to reflect their forced skill with the pila and the animation of the faster throwing.

[Aper]

Shield wall: i playtested without, and Hoplites are still very superior! Hard nut to crack for every other unit. And the behavior is as well 100 % okay, they mainly hold a line, and rather not try to flank, also they charge frontal.

Yes the stat balancing is very similar with or without shield-wall ; the difference is that WITH shield-wall the hoplites suffer casualties between 1/4 and 1/3 of their total force, WITHOUT between 1/3 and 1/2 ; tests made in custom battles, on flat terrain, against ensiferi messapii, 240 hoplites against 160 ensiferi, after some hours spent on balancing stats to be sure hoplites don't outflank without make them too strong.

Hister, it's to you and the PI team to decide : IMO both versions are good, but the cost of hoplites should be raised a bit to balance economically their great numbers and strenght.

EDIT : here the units for testing : attack, global defence, size and lethality of the hoplites must remain the same, or they'll start flanking enemies (unfortunately sec HPs have no effect on this) ; to refine balance the best stat to change is attack delay, that has an enourmous effect on melee skill

[Hister]

Lord Willy, Ancient Rome hasn't been included due to the CTD's it caused.

[DaVinci]

from my tests my latest hoplites are very strong and easily defeated only if their battle line is in complete chaos or they are attacked from the rear : their performance seems quite fine to me

I speak of the AI using hoplites in shield wall.

Javelin vs. stone and arrows: (and i discuss the theme here only in regard of the PI mod, and not generally ... valid for everything that i have written here )

1. Do you have Balearics and Cretans in this mod?
2. And i'm sure, a javelin thrown nearly horizontal* with a range of about 20-30 meters has more power (and damage) than an arrow, which is normally fired with a degree up to get an proper height/range.

And in the model, that i tried to describe, the projectiles push against a shield. Take this in consideration. Then you'll understand what i mean. And it is a minor thing for me, if an arrow or stone has ie. 2 or 3 attack, and a javelin 3 or 4 ... this actually doesn't make a huge difference. In the end you can of course have the same attack stats for them, no problem imo., and would reflect realism well enough.
Unarmoured guys and lack of proper shield will get its "realistic" losses in either way with these stats anyway.

*unfortunately not properly displayed in RTW.

The only way to have decent battle AI in RTW-BI-ALX engines is to add proper army formations

Not the whole truth ... a sensible edu and mount.txt coding helps a lot to make slight AI improvements (besides unit animations).

[Aper]

I speak of the AI using hoplites in shield wall.

I'll test more

1. Do you have Balearics and Cretans in this mod?
2. And i'm sure, a javelin thrown nearly horizontal with a range of about 20-30 meters has more power (and damage) than an arrow, which is normally fired with a degree up to get an proper height/range.

1. yes
2. About attack of ranged weapons : Pilum-like javs > Balearics/Cretans > regular javs > regular slings/bows : what do you think about this?

Not the whole truth ... a sensible edu and mount.txt coding helps a lot to make slight AI improvements (besides unit animations).

... What do you mean specifically? Thanks

EDIT : Anyone knows the other effects of "impetuous" stat_mental, apart from make the units charge on their own? ( but they never do this anyway)

[DaVinci]

About attack of ranged weapons : Pilum-like javs > Balearics/Cretans > regular javs > regular slings/bows : what do you think about this?

One more generally meant:

- Pila units are trained units ("soldiers") in my understanding, and have therefor anyway a better attack, despite the invention of the metal top of the javelin, which shall stuck into the sheild to make the shield bearer "static".
- Javelin units not actually trained "soldiers", with of course exceptions, where trained units carry also javelins.
- Slingers, in the ancient world, nearly every young man learned to use a sling for hunting animals. But, they never could afford their usual skill in a battle. Contrary of course, if they are Balearics or other slinger-"soldiers".

So in the whole, i would always take care of the unit (its cultural/traditional skill etc.) who carries a weapon. But what i have seen you doing this ... eventually here and there could be some adjustments.

---

AI, edu etc.:

- All the stats and codes lead the AI, exclusively, it is 100 % dependent of the coding that we are doing (besides hardcodes) . Everybody knows the ie. the disadvantage of phalanx units, so they for example need extra consideration if played by the AI (a decision is needed: shall i provide them along realism stats or do i give them extra advantages? ... as one example only).
- This is contrary to the human player, what is self explainable. So in oder to set up a decent combat balance, it needs the view from the AI, and not from the human player, to realise the combat model along my understanding at least.
- A test where you play a unit and you judge then "my unit x behaves proper" isn't very helpful. You need to set up tests, where you would simulate an AI vs. AI fight. And then mod the possible scews again and again, until you have the desired result, that unit x behaves vs. unit y in a way that takes consideration of realism, gameplay, and here most important, AI support.
... a long road this can be

[mcantu]

guys, the attack value in the EDU does not denote how powerful or lethal a weapon is. it determines whether or not a hit is made. in RTR i base this number on the skill and training of a unit and not the type of weapon used.

[Hister]

This is getting complicated guys!