One thing I DON'T like.

[Legionaru]

Hello. 1st I want to thank the team who created it,the mod is awesome,I really like the campaign map because of its simplicity&complexity,It's really good...
2st I really DON'T like the battles instead...enemy units seems to be unbeatable,like spartans!!It's a way too hard to beat 'em/rout'em because they stay to the last of them! I know that the mod wants to inflict reality..but it's a little bit too much of "reality" or "spartan" spirit there..
I even had a battle against carthage and tried to do the 'bridge bug' you know,i fortified myself at the end of the bridge but it was useless...

[Tankbuster]

What battle difficulty are you playing on? I'm playing on Medium (as it was intended I believe) and have no problems at all causing routs, so you either have your battle difficulty very high or you need to change your battle tactics somewhat...

The way you rout armies is by routing the weakest units first: pin them with regular troops and charge them with cavalry from the back, adding fire arrows or other missiles if needed. Or assassinate their general as fast as possible if you want to cheese it. The more overwhelming the troops, the better, and many negative moral multipliers ensure a rout (i.e. kill general AND charge from back AND have them surrounded).
Elite units might still stay but hey, they're bad-asses

[Sertorio]

Hello. 1st I want to thank the team who created it,the mod is awesome,I really like the campaign map because of its simplicity&complexity,It's really good...
2st I really DON'T like the battles instead...enemy units seems to be unbeatable,like spartans!!It's a way too hard to beat 'em/rout'em because they stay to the last of them! I know that the mod wants to inflict reality..but it's a little bit too much of "reality" or "spartan" spirit there..
I even had a battle against carthage and tried to do the 'bridge bug' you know,i fortified myself at the end of the bridge but it was useless...

Battles are somewhat different in RS2 you just need to get the hang of it. Cavalry charges, flank atacks, everything goes into the objective of panicking the enemy units. Bridge tactics or simple frontal onslaughts will usually lead to the situation you have just described.
Avoid total encirclement of the enemy army. Units tend to take more time to rout when fully encircled. Also 2.6 is balanced on medium battles.
Killing the enemy general might also do it. Trasimmene is an example, the moment you kill Hannibal the battle is half won.

[Ballacraine]

I have to say I agree with the OP.

Battles are way less fun than they were in 2.1

Then there was flexibility, & ebb & flow.

Now it is a case of constant pressure all the time in the hope of some give from the ironmen stoic enemy.

I really don't like the way it is weighted now.

Balla

[MacBlain]

I wonder if some of us should get together and write a strategy guide. The more complex gameplay throws a lot of players off.

Simply put, the game is balanced to mitigate some of the AI's inadequacies and to include more of the battle system's features in regular play. You have to do more things to win, and you have more potential obstacles.

-Frontal combats between tired heavy units achieve nothing.
-Low casualty rates means you can have one unit fight while another rests/waits, and you can pull units out without too many casualties.
-High morale means you don't have to commit the entire army just to hold the line.
-Don't even dream of routing good units until they are exhausted.
-Start with the weakest link and set up a chain reaction.

The sacred band spearmen, for example, I would pin with some medium or low quality infantry. Let them chew on some samnites for a while. Meanwhile you rout the skirmishers (which is easy as long as you dominate the enemy cavalry and control the field), then use the fear caused by the routing skirmishers to rout the medium-quality enemies (such as the libyans). Perhaps by this point you have some missile envelopment, which is hugely effective. Then after shooting the sacred band in the back, the fear caused by nearby friends routing combined with envelopment and exhaustion will cause them to break. If you had some assault infantry, perhaps some gallic swordsmen, they could have been simply standing around waiting this entire time. A fresh sword warband in the back of a tired elite unit will cause terrible damage.

If you are a spartan enthusiast, you are perhaps accustomed to a head-to-head unit quality test. Those take a horribly long time in Roma Surrectum.

Also, any kind of disordered blob of enemies, such as in a city or bridge assault, is a catastrophic, catastrophic waste of unit fatigue. Do the bare minimum to contain them and simply wait until they are so tired they can barely walk. Then fight them tag-team style, which will be easy because they'll have virtually no frontage.

RS 2.6 is one of the best things I have ever played.

[Zydrius]

We woudn't love this mod if battels were too easy!

[Grimbold]

I will have to disagree. Pre 2.6 battles were over fast except when you fought proper spawned armies and roman imperial legions, the latter because it usually kept going even with their general dead.

Post 2.6 is quite different. Regardless of faction or army setup, the AI army won't go down that easily, general dead or not and i must say i quite enjoy that change.

Im Hard battles player btw

[dvk901]

In line with what MacBlain states, and for those unfamiliar with RS2 (or those who have played it, for that matter), I have to emphasize that RS2 is more or less a 'second generation' mod for RTW.
Now what do I mean by that? Well, by the time RS1.6 and RS2 came out, many had proclaimed RTW 'dead'. A great number of mods had been released previously, and all of us on the team had played most if not all of them. So when we started RS2, we had in mind the many faults and inadequacies of RTW, and were determined to fix them as much as humanly possible. One of those 'inadequacies' was that, no matter what you played (aside from, perhaps, SPQR), your chances of actually losing a campaign were slim to none. It was just too hard to overcome the stupidity of the AI and have a mod where you could bring up the menu and play a selection of factions like Vanilla. If you made the campaigns too hard for one faction, fine if you played them, but if you didn't they died off quickly with settings that were not in their favor. For this reason, we created numerous individual campaigns where each faction you played had the odds stacked against them from the get-go.

All of this was in keeping with our team philosophy that it was no longer a challenge to play an RTW mod unless there was the distinct possibility that you could lose. Only one other mod had ever provided me with that feeling, and it was SPQR. So all of us wanted to reproduce that 'feeling' in this mod. Problem is, it takes a ton of testing and campaigns by testers, and we've really never had a lot of them. So at first, RS2.0 did not meet our expectations, nor did 2.1a, or even 2.5...although the latter came closer. Version 2.6, however, comes a lot closer to what we were trying to accomplish all along.

So I guess if you're looking for an RTW mod that is a shoe in for a win.....RS2.6 probably isn't going to be it unless you alter settings yourself. The battles are hard and much more realistic. Even RTW's ingrained bugs help to make battles more frustrating and difficult. Bear in mind also that this version of RS2 is designed to be played 'nominally' on M\M settings.....and even that setting will be difficult.
If you find it too difficult, don't feel insulted to play on M\E. If you really want a butt kicking, try your luck on H\H. That is the most difficult setting for this mod.

[Tankbuster]

Curse the Gods I'm already playing H campaign

[mav61]

In line with what MacBlain states, and for those unfamiliar with RS2 (or those who have played it, for that matter), I have to emphasize that RS2 is more or less a 'second generation' mod for RTW.
Now what do I mean by that? Well, by the time RS1.6 and RS2 came out, many had proclaimed RTW 'dead'. A great number of mods had been released previously, and all of us on the team had played most if not all of them. So when we started RS2, we had in mind the many faults and inadequacies of RTW, and were determined to fix them as much as humanly possible. One of those 'inadequacies' was that, no matter what you played (aside from, perhaps, SPQR), your chances of actually losing a campaign were slim to none. It was just too hard to overcome the stupidity of the AI and have a mod where you could bring up the menu and play a selection of factions like Vanilla. If you made the campaigns too hard for one faction, fine if you played them, but if you didn't they died off quickly with settings that were not in their favor. For this reason, we created numerous individual campaigns where each faction you played had the odds stacked against them from the get-go.

All of this was in keeping with our team philosophy that it was no longer a challenge to play an RTW mod unless there was the distinct possibility that you could lose. Only one other mod had ever provided me with that feeling, and it was SPQR. So all of us wanted to reproduce that 'feeling' in this mod. Problem is, it takes a ton of testing and campaigns by testers, and we've really never had a lot of them. So at first, RS2.0 did not meet our expectations, nor did 2.1a, or even 2.5...although the latter came closer. Version 2.6, however, comes a lot closer to what we were trying to accomplish all along.

So I guess if you're looking for an RTW mod that is a shoe in for a win.....RS2.6 probably isn't going to be it unless you alter settings yourself. The battles are hard and much more realistic. Even RTW's ingrained bugs help to make battles more frustrating and difficult. Bear in mind also that this version of RS2 is designed to be played 'nominally' on M\M settings.....and even that setting will be difficult.
If you find it too difficult, don't feel insulted to play on M\E. If you really want a butt kicking, try your luck on H\H. That is the most difficult setting for this mod.

I don't know if i agree whole heartedly there but you guys know the mod inside and out more than we can appreciate..but in saying that i haven't had a whole lot of success with 2.6 mainly because at the moment to many CTDs but i liked 2.5 and thats what i have reverted back to despite its flaws its everything you have mentioned above i don't think 2.6 has reached that level in battles and it maybe a little late with the release of Rome2 but i think your earlier work in 2.5 was better...in saying that theres a lot of people who may disagree with me and those who haven't managed to get past the crashing to really experience 2.6 like myself, but what i've seen despite the new fancy pictures 2.5 is still the best version.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Viewing the Crystal Ball........

I for one feel very proud of contributing to the RSII Battles (nearly entirely as the Romans) - they are the most realistic I can imagine and most ancient battles were indeed infantry grind-fests (that was the basic nature of Greek style phalanxes and it worked until the Romans showed up). Personally I'd still like to see cavalry reduced more, perhaps just in unit size.

For most situations - I would advise not worrying about your main infantry centre - put them on Guard and trust them to hold for quite a while. Then deal with the flanks!

Next week Rome2 arrives - and I'm quite sure I will be cursing soon thereafter and coming back to RSII quite fast and see if it's 2.7 or Rome2's RSIII (?) - meaningless and rather silly battles will do it. Everything may be explained when I read how CA wanted to replicate the 'Ride of the Rohirrim' - so now we'll have another juvenile 21stC look-back at how cavalry are fast tanks......oh dear.........

[MacBlain]

I feel there are two basic problems with cavalry:

- Battles are too narrow, and so cavalry control space too easily. I haven't played much of Diadochi TW, but the first thing I noticed was that the default phalanx deployments are rather shallow, creating a much longer line of battle. But I don't think the AI or the unit movement system in general can handle long, shallow deployments. I don't think there is a good way to fix this unless we could increase battle sizes and greatly increase the amount of line infantry, or simply reinterpret the scale, shrink the cavalry units, and slow everything down. The game might start to get pretty abstract in that case.
- Executing charges is much too difficult, and virtually impossible for the AI. This means the player will have cavalry superiority and freedom of movement in virtually every battle. (I note that an enemy with a good contingent of missile cavalry and a few cataphracts is a splash of cold water in my face!) I really think it would be better if we could find some way to simulate cavalry dynamics without relying on high charge bonuses (which, again, virtually do not exist for the AI).

And I could be wrong, certainly as a tester you have played more and looked more closely than I have, but it is my observation that guard mode decreases unit performance in nearly all cases for negligible benefit. This arises mostly from the way individual soldiers move to preserve the formation or engage the enemy. I never use it myself and I strongly believe the AI would be better off never using it.

And as for TW:R2, it is simply the next in a line of taller and taller heaps of Production Values. I have no interest. The lack of advance in game design is startling. I don't judge anyone for enjoying Electronic Consumer Entertainment Products with historical flavor.

[the man, the myth, the legend]

I don't know what you guys are getting at, battle are a lot faster and easier to rout than earlier versions. The cavalry feels more powerful than they were before. Battles too narrow, seriously? The AI has a more difficult time executing charges because we as players prevent them from doing so, I was actually surprised a few times when the AI were trying to send their cavalry around my flanks and get behind me. If I hadn't stopped them they no doubt would have charged my rear. If you don't like the shallow formations, switch AI formations in the launcher til you find one you like. There are plenty of gameplay guides and AAR's to read if your struggling, read them. About the guard mode, I think it works better if your just defending, if your gonna attack take it off, if you don't like it don't use it.

[Ballacraine]

I don't mind a slug fest.

For me, the battles in the early iteration RS 2.1 were much more enjoyable with Alex on H/H.

There was a lot more ebb & flow, you could withdraw a tired unit & redeploy.
As opposed to the current iterations constant batter & don't dare make a single error, or the enemy will recover morale immediately.
Even when using correct tactics, having tactical advantage of the hill + outnumbering + outmanoeuvring + killing the opposing General, they still grind on & rout my all inexperienced army on Alex M/M

Balla

[Sertorio]

Most of us mention the exe we are playing, difficulty settings but usually forget to mention unit size on our opinions. On my opinion Large units is the most balanced setting between duration of battle, behaviour of the AI and our own units and adequacy to terrain. I believe playing on huge to be a very diferent ball game.

[dvk901]

Most of us mention the exe we are playing, difficulty settings but usually forget to mention unit size on our opinions. On my opinion Large units is the most balanced setting between duration of battle, behaviour of the AI and our own units and adequacy to terrain. I believe playing on huge to be a very diferent ball game.

This is a very good point, and one I overlooked. It is pure math that larger units will mean longer battles.

[tungri_centurio]

I play on huge settings.its not mutch different then large if you used to it
I always use 3 line of infantry,first line of 4 to pin the center down,
second to fill the gaps or cover the close flanks.3de line triaria to encircle them and roll
Up the carpet from the flanks.when all engaged i use all my cav to hit the back of the left flank of the enemys
Army.always workes for me,if i can flank with my cav.play h\h bi exe.
i love the challenge and long grind instead of shirt battles,thats why i like RS2.5/6

[z28man]

I used to agree with OP but everyone told me a few tips and to give it time, now I enjoy the battles the way they are. I play with BI because I use a different mod with Alex and when I play something else the battles are over in the blink of en eye. Sometimes my RS2 battles go on a bit long but I usually let the AI tire then ram them from behind with calvarly and poof it's over

[Acheron]

I play on H/H with Huge unit sizes and jumped into 2.6 expecting something like 2.5 and honestly i am about 12 turns into my Roman Campaign and it's the most fun I've had from RS1 right through and my troubles are barely starting, i was surprised but pleasantly so when i fought the 3 or so Roman Rebel stacks as well as Hannibal (a battle i just can't allow myself to loose for my own reasons), i noticed the differences instantly, having reserve troops and a sufficient amount of Cav as well as the correct timing and knowing you armies capabilities and limits has never been more important

[maackey]

I like the battles on open fields -- you need to flank and out-maneuver your opponent to win. That said, I find that many of the exotic and expensive units are worthless, as you can crush pretty much anything with 4-8 levy infantry as fodder and a few cheap slingers/archers/javelins/horses to deal the damage. Attacking the rear of even the most elite units with slingers or javelins melts them like butter on your fodder bread.

Fights inside the city are too slow and cumbersome. Even when I use my ridiculously expensive elite troops which cost as much as an entire army themselves; they just get bogged down trading punches in the streets. I try to make multiple entry points when I can to surround the defenders and perhaps get some shots off with ranged units from behind but that really only works with small armies -- otherwise the defenders just flank your flankers and it turns into a molasses sandwich. My favorite tactic for city assaults is to just bait them into sallying forth and surround their front gate with units. Let them come out one by one and smash them from three sides. But even that can take a long time if they manage to retreat back inside and rally up at the town square, and it isn't reliable to assume the AI will sally forth and attack either, especially when time is of the essence on the campaign map.

One of THE most annoying things about battles in RS:II however, is on hilly maps where the enemy army just camps on top of a hill, no matter what. Not only do I usually have to march across the entire map (as the hills are often highest in corners or edges), but the enemy army just sits there the whole time, even allowing me to circumvent their army to get to an even HIGHER position, and then I rest my men till they're fresh and ready to begin the charge down the hill, because the enemy army couldn't be bothered to attack me while I was marching up on either side of them.

All in all, I'm rather enjoying 2.6. I've only just started one campaign so far, using alex.exe, H/H, Huge units, Sparta. I've seen some other people mention a lack of money/harder economy but I haven't been strapped for cash at all -- and I've been playing much less conservatively as well this playthrough: I've been dishing out the big bucks for a few spartan phalanx units and marines, where normally I'd just stick to the cheapest units possible (as I mentioned before, their performance is nearly identical).