Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Battles in 1.6

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Leeham991's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    Posts
    1,893

    Default Battles in 1.6

    Ok this has been the main factor that made me not play RS1.6

    The battles... Yes the environments are epic and all other mods for RTW are absolute tripe to me simple because of that xD but the actual battles seem to have died a little.
    I played RS1.5 all the time a usually the battles ended at around the hour mark with a large retreat causes be many moral shocks being thrown around, but playing 1.6 I had 4 battles that lasted about 10 minutes each and had thousands of casualties for both sides. I'm sure others have noticed.

    Is this going to be the pattern for 2.0 or is this an exclusively 1.6 problem?
    I like pie.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    when i just started play 1.6 i noticed that i get more casualties then on 1.5 but its only due to new environments there is more hills to take defensive positions, once i got used to it it became same as in 1.5, never had 1k casualties in 1 equal battle and never had battle lasting 1 hour on 1.5 either

  3. #3
    C-Rob's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    somewhereinorneartheUS
    Posts
    3,492

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    I"ve never had any battle but a siege take an hour...

  4. #4

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    Quote Originally Posted by C-Rob View Post
    I"ve never had any battle but a siege take an hour...
    I've never had any battle at all last an hour.


  5. #5

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    I'm finding that my increases in casualties are effected most by the AI utilizing the terrain better. Battles are much improved imo.


    And hr long Battle? Thats insane how do you ever get thru a campaign?

  6. #6
    xXEsotericXx's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    645

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    Quote Originally Posted by General Brittanicus View Post
    I've never had any battle at all last an hour.
    Yea same! ....... 1 hour for a battle? lol......

    someone tell me how to fail at this game and ill fight each battle 1 hour...
    "I think left but i write extreem right"
    - Esoteric -


    :

  7. #7
    Binshuy's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Phillipines
    Posts
    2,621

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    whoa an hour long? @__@
    i dont like long battles thats why i never played SPQR mod again xD it drags too much
    Quick, Decisive, and Clean that how i like my battles ^__^

    in think RS captured the right amount of solider HP
    they dont die like peasants just like in Vanilla
    and they dont definitely too long like in SPQR
    Last edited by Binshuy; December 21, 2009 at 12:57 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stavroforos View Post
    I think Lady Gaga is awesome.


  8. #8
    Leeham991's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    Posts
    1,893

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    My battles are long because I do allot of positioning.
    I like pie.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    To tell the truth, i didn'n see any significant changes in battles.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    I like the new terrain, but all the hill are just too much in my opinion. The 3D distorts the view too much, just doesn't look good. That why I preferr to fight my battles on the plain.
    We’re banned from the dog park. Well, I guess it’s okay to hump, and it’s okay to bark, but both at the same time freaks people out.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    Once I had a siege battle that lasted an hour and 43 minutes...
    I left the room for part of it because the conflict on the battlements
    wasn't progressing very quickly... When I got back 10 minutes later
    I found I had held the wall, but another siege tower had finally made its
    circuit all the way around my city... XD Lots of running for my minions.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    Not to stick my nose in where it's not wanted (I seem to be doing that a bit today), but, yeah, a battle can last longer than an hour. Maybe not every battle, but I've had a few - one was a siege of Carthago and definitely lasted longer than an hour ...

    "How?" you ask.

    Are you playing with huge units? Huge unit battles take longer. Do you have two full stacks fighting one another in a city under siege? Sieges can take longer. Do you have one Roman army fighting three full stacks of heavily armored Greeks and you're trying to maneuver around to flank them? Maneuvering takes longer. And is there so much animation on the field that you can't use the 2x or 3x button because of lag?

    To be fair, there's several logical reasons why a single battle can last longer than an hour.

    At the OP: Try turning the battle clock off (I personally hate it) or try using the 2x or 3x speeder when your units are just going at it on the wall or field. I have to admit, the number of battles I've fought that take longer than an hour is very, very small - and that's in every version of RS that I've ever played.

    Now, I've had turns that have lasted for an hour ... oh yes ...
    Last edited by Aristotle's Folly; July 09, 2010 at 01:51 PM.
    Roma Surrectum II Rome Playtester

    Please call me Dani ... Yes, it's true ... I'm a girl ...

    I give rep to people for being helpful, considerate, or clever. Ergo, you DO NOT have to rep me in return. Your being clever does not entitle me to rep. See?

  13. #13

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    I've had a few battles in RS take longer than an hour, but I play on huge settings as well.

    Even with huge settings, two stacks of armies doesn't take that long for me. Only battles with 3 or more full stacks can take that long. I think the longest was one in Thrace where I took a city from a full stack, and then had to defend the same city from relieving armies that arrived later.

    That said, I do maneuver a lot more than some. If you just go for head on attacks all the time, most battles will be over one way or another pretty quick.

    I agree with Aristotle's Folly on the battle clock, the thing makes no sense. In so many sieges I've killed off the entire enemy army, only to have the battle clock run out with my troops 5 feet from the middle of the city that they need to take. If all you needed to do was waste the attacker's time long enough to win, a lot of historical battles would have gone another way.

  14. #14
    dvk901's Avatar Consummatum est
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,984

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    I think it is going to be a 'given' that the terrain in RS mods will have a profound effect on how battles proceed. When playing battles in Vanilla or, (not to be taken as criticism) most other mods, RTW terrain tends to be very smooth and flat, even in a supposedly hilly area or mountains. Vegetation placement in the old environments is fairly 'homogeneous', with trees clumped in certain areas that could easily be avoided, and many large open spaces. This was absolutely great for the vision of the player and his\her ability to see what's going on in a battle, and position troops where he\she COULD see what was going on. It's a natural tendency to want to SEE and not be blocked by trees and hills. I imagine the game designers thought this was great for a 'game', and no doubt designed it that way.

    The terrain in RS1.6, and even moreso in RS2, however, has been designed to be more realistic. It makes use of the built-in features that CA never used to disperse trees, ground textures, and vegetation more randomly, and the 'lay of the land' is far less flat and boring. Now, sure, people who love to SEE, and who are used to laying out their phalanxes in nice straight lines with no obstructions are going to see the RS1.6\RS2 environments and say that they are too obstructive, too hilly, too hard to SEE! And people used to moving their equipment around to wherever they want, and getting them all positioned so that as soon as they click 'Start Battle' they can strat raining down fire and boulders on the enemy are going to cry foul. Why can't I do this anymore!!??

    Well, the reason you can't do a lot of these things anymore is because of the 'realism' of the environment you are fighting in. And guess what? We totally enhanced the AI's battle effectiveness and tenacity by doing nothing to any text file or formation or unit stat........we just just gave it places to hide, hills to take advantage of, an ways to lay traps for your unsuspecting armies. In other words, we made battles harder for the player. The net result is that the AI armies, instead of standing there on the Vanilla 'tabletop' ground and waiting for you to come and annihilate them will make a made dash for high ground and tree cover just as YOU would. Infuriating, isn't it? But far more realistic. And now your Ballista and onagers or stone throwers are having a hard time. All these trees! All these hills! Where did the enemy go? Dang it's a pain trying to move these heavy-a$$ed things through the woods! Yeah, it's just more realistic, that's all.

    Another 'consequence' of this is that battles result in a lot more casualties.....notably, yours. That means battles 'can' be shorter, because units rout faster when their numbers diminish faster. You're getting pummeled by slingers and archers you can't even FIND. You have to send off cavalry or other fast units 'hoping' to find them, and when they do, they run headlong into an infantry unit hiding there with them! And you don't always have the high ground, either.

    I had a battle in RS2 where my army seemed so impressive to the enemy (Arverni Celts) that they just turned tail and started to run. So I pursued them with my whole army over hills and through the woods, hoping to catch at least a few of their units. On the 'tabletop' of Vanilla, no problem, but in this case, the AI (unbeknown to me) was pealing off units in the woods and hiding them, so that I ran right into an ambush from both sides. I still won the battle, but I have never seen the AI in RTW behave like that before, and my 'impressive army' suffered many, many losses I hadn't expected.

    Creator of: "Ecce, Roma Surrectum....Behold, Rome Arises!"
    R.I.P. My Beloved Father

  15. #15

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    Quote Originally Posted by dvk901 View Post
    I think it is going to be a 'given' that the terrain in RS mods will have a profound effect on how battles proceed. When playing battles in Vanilla or, (not to be taken as criticism) most other mods, RTW terrain tends to be very smooth and flat, even in a supposedly hilly area or mountains. Vegetation placement in the old environments is fairly 'homogeneous', with trees clumped in certain areas that could easily be avoided, and many large open spaces. This was absolutely great for the vision of the player and his\her ability to see what's going on in a battle, and position troops where he\she COULD see what was going on. It's a natural tendency to want to SEE and not be blocked by trees and hills. I imagine the game designers thought this was great for a 'game', and no doubt designed it that way.

    The terrain in RS1.6, and even moreso in RS2, however, has been designed to be more realistic. It makes use of the built-in features that CA never used to disperse trees, ground textures, and vegetation more randomly, and the 'lay of the land' is far less flat and boring. Now, sure, people who love to SEE, and who are used to laying out their phalanxes in nice straight lines with no obstructions are going to see the RS1.6\RS2 environments and say that they are too obstructive, too hilly, too hard to SEE! And people used to moving their equipment around to wherever they want, and getting them all positioned so that as soon as they click 'Start Battle' they can strat raining down fire and boulders on the enemy are going to cry foul. Why can't I do this anymore!!??

    Well, the reason you can't do a lot of these things anymore is because of the 'realism' of the environment you are fighting in. And guess what? We totally enhanced the AI's battle effectiveness and tenacity by doing nothing to any text file or formation or unit stat........we just just gave it places to hide, hills to take advantage of, an ways to lay traps for your unsuspecting armies. In other words, we made battles harder for the player. The net result is that the AI armies, instead of standing there on the Vanilla 'tabletop' ground and waiting for you to come and annihilate them will make a made dash for high ground and tree cover just as YOU would. Infuriating, isn't it? But far more realistic. And now your Ballista and onagers or stone throwers are having a hard time. All these trees! All these hills! Where did the enemy go? Dang it's a pain trying to move these heavy-a$$ed things through the woods! Yeah, it's just more realistic, that's all.

    Another 'consequence' of this is that battles result in a lot more casualties.....notably, yours. That means battles 'can' be shorter, because units rout faster when their numbers diminish faster. You're getting pummeled by slingers and archers you can't even FIND. You have to send off cavalry or other fast units 'hoping' to find them, and when they do, they run headlong into an infantry unit hiding there with them! And you don't always have the high ground, either.

    I had a battle in RS2 where my army seemed so impressive to the enemy (Arverni Celts) that they just turned tail and started to run. So I pursued them with my whole army over hills and through the woods, hoping to catch at least a few of their units. On the 'tabletop' of Vanilla, no problem, but in this case, the AI (unbeknown to me) was pealing off units in the woods and hiding them, so that I ran right into an ambush from both sides. I still won the battle, but I have never seen the AI in RTW behave like that before, and my 'impressive army' suffered many, many losses I hadn't expected.
    That sounds incredible! the more i hear and see from this mod the more i cant wait to play it




  16. #16

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    Quote Originally Posted by dvk901 View Post
    I think it is going to be a 'given' that the terrain in RS mods will have a profound effect on how battles proceed. When playing battles in Vanilla or, (not to be taken as criticism) most other mods, RTW terrain tends to be very smooth and flat, even in a supposedly hilly area or mountains. Vegetation placement in the old environments is fairly 'homogeneous', with trees clumped in certain areas that could easily be avoided, and many large open spaces. This was absolutely great for the vision of the player and his\her ability to see what's going on in a battle, and position troops where he\she COULD see what was going on. It's a natural tendency to want to SEE and not be blocked by trees and hills. I imagine the game designers thought this was great for a 'game', and no doubt designed it that way.

    The terrain in RS1.6, and even moreso in RS2, however, has been designed to be more realistic. It makes use of the built-in features that CA never used to disperse trees, ground textures, and vegetation more randomly, and the 'lay of the land' is far less flat and boring. Now, sure, people who love to SEE, and who are used to laying out their phalanxes in nice straight lines with no obstructions are going to see the RS1.6\RS2 environments and say that they are too obstructive, too hilly, too hard to SEE! And people used to moving their equipment around to wherever they want, and getting them all positioned so that as soon as they click 'Start Battle' they can strat raining down fire and boulders on the enemy are going to cry foul. Why can't I do this anymore!!??

    Well, the reason you can't do a lot of these things anymore is because of the 'realism' of the environment you are fighting in. And guess what? We totally enhanced the AI's battle effectiveness and tenacity by doing nothing to any text file or formation or unit stat........we just just gave it places to hide, hills to take advantage of, an ways to lay traps for your unsuspecting armies. In other words, we made battles harder for the player. The net result is that the AI armies, instead of standing there on the Vanilla 'tabletop' ground and waiting for you to come and annihilate them will make a made dash for high ground and tree cover just as YOU would. Infuriating, isn't it? But far more realistic. And now your Ballista and onagers or stone throwers are having a hard time. All these trees! All these hills! Where did the enemy go? Dang it's a pain trying to move these heavy-a$$ed things through the woods! Yeah, it's just more realistic, that's all.

    Another 'consequence' of this is that battles result in a lot more casualties.....notably, yours. That means battles 'can' be shorter, because units rout faster when their numbers diminish faster. You're getting pummeled by slingers and archers you can't even FIND. You have to send off cavalry or other fast units 'hoping' to find them, and when they do, they run headlong into an infantry unit hiding there with them! And you don't always have the high ground, either.

    I had a battle in RS2 where my army seemed so impressive to the enemy (Arverni Celts) that they just turned tail and started to run. So I pursued them with my whole army over hills and through the woods, hoping to catch at least a few of their units. On the 'tabletop' of Vanilla, no problem, but in this case, the AI (unbeknown to me) was pealing off units in the woods and hiding them, so that I ran right into an ambush from both sides. I still won the battle, but I have never seen the AI in RTW behave like that before, and my 'impressive army' suffered many, many losses I hadn't expected.
    BOOOOM! That's why RS is so amazing.

    I've had a battle last an hour and a half. I was Macedon fighting the Greeks, and I attacked Athens. Both sides had a full stack of elite infantry, and I had about 8 siege towers. They had all their men on the walls. It took forever...

    EDIT:
    I had a battle in RS2 where my army seemed so impressive to the enemy (Arverni Celts) that they just turned tail and started to run. So I pursued them with my whole army over hills and through the woods, hoping to catch at least a few of their units. On the 'tabletop' of Vanilla, no problem, but in this case, the AI (unbeknown to me) was pealing off units in the woods and hiding them, so that I ran right into an ambush from both sides. I still won the battle, but I have never seen the AI in RTW behave like that before, and my 'impressive army' suffered many, many losses I hadn't expected.
    Destroyed by your own creation? Not quite, but still... great to know how good the AI will be in RS2!
    Last edited by The Man With No Name; July 12, 2010 at 03:23 PM.

    Roma Surrectum 2- THE mod for Rome Total War- Visit the forums!



  17. #17
    Squid's Avatar Opifex
    Patrician Artifex Technical Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Frozen waste lands of the north
    Posts
    17,751
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    That description of battles by dvk is already in the mod in RS1.6a, so download it and play it to feel the pain.
    Under the patronage of Roman_Man#3, Patron of Ishan
    Click for my tools and tutorials
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -----Albert Einstein

  18. #18
    saxdude's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    House of Erotic Maneuvering
    Posts
    10,420

    Default Re: Battles in 1.6

    True, though i have to say battles in RS2 have been long. The AI tend to piss you off quite nicely, you never know where they are, where there heading, how many they are and you always loose a whole lot of units, win or lose. its horribly awesome.

Posting Permissions

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