Ars Gratia Artis - Complete Battle Overhaul, v2.7.2 - Patch 7 ready (updated 15/11/13)

[LEGIO_XXX ULPIA]

So Selea,this mod will not update again?

[jamiedp88]

I hope he is

[Aethyr]

I messaged Selea, Divide Et Impera is another animal of its own devices, more focus on historic balance etc, rest assured, for now at least, AGA will continue to be worked on, and we will most likely see the great changes from here in DEI regardless.

[LEGIO_XXX ULPIA]

great! Thanks Selea and Aethyr!!!!!

[curtis11]

Great news thanks i was wondering the same.

[Muskelsteffen]

Hello Selea,

At first I have to admit that you have done a very good job with this mod! Thank you for sharing the fruits of your work with us.
I still have some annotations regarding historical issues. But I must say that I have not been reading the whole thread so my notes may be redundant. Secondly I'm still rather new to your mod and so I don't know which significance these things have that I will call "historical facts" - so which importance you attach to shape your mod in accordance with things that some modern historians say about things ancient historians had said. So use or ignore my annotations as you like.

My main source for historical evidences that I have at my fingertips is Peter Connolly's "Greece and Rome at War" from where I could deliver some quotes if someone should have any interest. Other tings I may say do come from that what I would call my general education. So, to cut a long story short:

You have designed following basics for "greek" factions:

Athens relies more on the cavalry, Macedon goes for pure pike unit strength, Carthage has a strong point on the unique Indian Armored Elephants

AFAIK the Thessalians were the only (original) greeks that had a strong cavalry tradition because there was (and is) a lack of flat terrain on the Peloponnes and in the Attica. But Thessaly is controled by the Epirotes and in another province as the Athenian homeland. Souldn't the Athenians rather get their naval tradition as a major attribute and so some strong peltasts and navy-hoplites?

AFAIK was the heavy use of cavalry (especially the neighbouring thessalian) a specialty of the macedon way of warfare. There's no doubt that their pike-tradition was very powerful but the royal way of fighting was that on horseback. You have depicted this with the note "+ good shock cavalry" but your description "Macedon goes for pure pike unit strength" is at least mistakable.

AFAIK did the Carthaginians never have indian elephants. Connolly says about that: "It is clear from the many representations of elephants on Carthaginian coins that the war elephants used by the Punic armies were African. The Carthaginians hunted the forest elephant in Marocco and also on the edge of the Sahara desert [...]." There was a controversy among modern historians why Polybius said about the battle of Raphia in 217 BC that the African elephants of the Ptolemaios IV. were inferior to the Indian ones of the Seleucids. Meanwhile there is a consensus (afaik) that the Egyptian elephants were the nowadays extincted Nothern African woodland elephants which were smaller than the Indian ones. Given that the Seleucids were the all time enemies of Egypt they cut off the west from the supply of the superior indian elephants. And if Egypt got none the Carthaginians lacked the bigger ones even more.

These considerations for now. As I said - you could bear them in mind or ignore them - according to the philosophy of your beautiful mod.

[jamiedp88]

Hello Selea,

At first I have to admit that you have done a very good job with this mod! Thank you for sharing the fruits of your work with us.
I still have some annotations regarding historical issues. But I must say that I have not been reading the whole thread so my notes may be redundant. Secondly I'm still rather new to your mod and so I don't know which significance these things have that I will call "historical facts" - so which importance you attach to shape your mod in accordance with things that some modern historians say about things ancient historians had said. So use or ignore my annotations as you like.

My main source for historical evidences that I have at my fingertips is Peter Connolly's "Greece and Rome at War" from where I could deliver some quotes if someone should have any interest. Other tings I may say do come from that what I would call my general education. So, to cut a long story short:

You have designed following basics for "greek" factions:

AFAIK the Thessalians were the only (original) greeks that had a strong cavalry tradition because there was (and is) a lack of flat terrain on the Peloponnes and in the Attica. But Thessaly is controled by the Epirotes and in another province as the Athenian homeland. Souldn't the Athenians rather get their naval tradition as a major attribute and so some strong peltasts and navy-hoplites?

AFAIK was the heavy use of cavalry (especially the neighbouring thessalian) a specialty of the macedon way of warfare. There's no doubt that their pike-tradition was very powerful but the royal way of fighting was that on horseback. You have depicted this with the note "+ good shock cavalry" but your description "Macedon goes for pure pike unit strength" is at least mistakable.

AFAIK did the Carthaginians never have indian elephants. Connolly says about that: "It is clear from the many representations of elephants on Carthaginian coins that the war elephants used by the Punic armies were African. The Carthaginians hunted the forest elephant in Marocco and also on the edge of the Sahara desert [...]." There was a controversy among modern historians why Polybius said about the battle of Raphia in 217 BC that the African elephants of the Ptolemaios IV. were inferior to the Indian ones of the Seleucids. Meanwhile there is a consensus (afaik) that the Egyptian elephants were the nowadays extincted Nothern African woodland elephants which were smaller than the Indian ones. Given that the Seleucids were the all time enemies of Egypt they cut off the west from the supply of the superior indian elephants. And if Egypt got none the Carthaginians lacked the bigger ones even more.

These considerations for now. As I said - you could bear them in mind or ignore them - according to the philosophy of your beautiful mod.

AGA only really edits unit stats, doesn't add units. The only units affected are vanilla units, the mod changes all abilities etc but never really touches stats based on the facts you brought out. More its just a statement if anything.

It's a battle mod affecting battles predominantly. Im not selea but I think your comments are kinda ahead of this mods time eg. when the mod becomes a campaign mod, best to put these facts in the Divide et Impera Mod that tehy are working on as that one will have units and campaign modifications imo

[Shadeslayer]

Just a quick question.

Reading about the mod it seems just the thing for me; I don't really like any other mods due to too much unnecessary changes, so I got really high hopes for this one... However, I think I found an issue.

Basically, I just started a new Suebi campaign and used Longbow Hunters to shoot all their ammunition (tried poison arrow, precision shot, normal shot) straight into a group of enemy Levy Spears... and guess what happened? 0 casualties. That's right. 0. Complete immunity to Arrows. And the Longbow Hunters are supposed to be the best archer unit in the game... I'm scared to even think how useless the others are. I don't see the point of having anything in my armies that doesn't do anything at all. Intended or broken? Please take a look at this issue.

Ty for your time and keep up the awesome work! Also looking forward to some more Divide Et Impera updates

[jamiedp88]

Just a quick question.

Reading about the mod it seems just the thing for me; I don't really like any other mods due to too much unnecessary changes, so I got really high hopes for this one... However, I think I found an issue.

Basically, I just started a new Suebi campaign and used Longbow Hunters to shoot all their ammunition (tried poison arrow, precision shot, normal shot) straight into a group of enemy Levy Spears... and guess what happened? 0 casualties. That's right. 0. Complete immunity to Arrows. And the Longbow Hunters are supposed to be the best archer unit in the game... I'm scared to even think how useless the others are. I don't see the point of having anything in my armies that doesn't do anything at all. Intended or broken? Please take a look at this issue.

Ty for your time and keep up the awesome work! Also looking forward to some more Divide Et Impera updates

Longbow hunters are not the best archers.

The mod makes it so you have to use your missile units tactically not just shooting the front of enemy. If the enemy use shields or heavy armor the arrows will have little effect unless used on the enemies flanks. Also be aware during this time arrows werent extremely powerful, however in this mod, using them on enemy flanks is the best, and the morale decrease they give to enemies is also very useful in allowing your other melee units to rout them more quickly.

[Shadeslayer]

Longbow hunters are not the best archers.

The mod makes it so you have to use your missile units tactically not just shooting the front of enemy. If the enemy use shields or heavy armor the arrows will have little effect unless used on the enemies flanks. Also be aware during this time arrows werent extremely powerful, however in this mod, using them on enemy flanks is the best, and the morale decrease they give to enemies is also very useful in allowing your other melee units to rout them more quickly.

Well, I thought this mod strived for the most realistic warfare experience possible. Shooting the entire ammunition into a single unit and not making a SINGLE casualty (on the very basic/ one of the units in game - Levy Spearmen - who are supposed to be vulnerable to projectiles I think?) is just not realistic AT ALL. And using Archers to flank and shoot into their backs isn't realistic or interesting either, you flank with many other units already and it would be unneccessary management that doesn't even make sense historically.

[jamiedp88]

Well, I thought this mod strived for the most realistic warfare experience possible. Shooting the entire ammunition into a single unit and not making a SINGLE casualty (on the very basic/ one of the units in game - Levy Spearmen - who are supposed to be vulnerable to projectiles I think?) is just not realistic AT ALL. And using Archers to flank and shoot into their backs isn't realistic or interesting either, you flank with many other units already and it would be unneccessary management that doesn't even make sense historically.

Might wanna read up on your history mate

[Cuddlefission]

Well, I thought this mod strived for the most realistic warfare experience possible. Shooting the entire ammunition into a single unit and not making a SINGLE casualty (on the very basic/ one of the units in game - Levy Spearmen - who are supposed to be vulnerable to projectiles I think?) is just not realistic AT ALL. And using Archers to flank and shoot into their backs isn't realistic or interesting either, you flank with many other units already and it would be unneccessary management that doesn't even make sense historically.

I think this is an area where the game's level of abstraction from reality comes into play. In most 'realism' based gaming endeavors, be they tabletop or computerized, there comes a point where one needs to decide whether to focus on what I'll call technical accuracy or behavioral accuracy. Sometimes the solutions which best replicate the physical mechanics of things and those which produce the realistic / historical end result for such actions don't line up - then there's a judgement call on which to prioritize.

In this case, the troops in the game don't behave much like real people - they don't position shields well to catch arrows or use terrain cover, they'll willingly walk into an arrow hail without blinking an eye, happily stand still under fire unless expressly told otherwise... you've got a lot of compounding 'inaccuracies' or abstractions that, if you place them alongside (for example) a fully accurate (just determining what that actually looks like is well above my pay grade) model of javelin throwing, slinging, archery, what have you, you get a system which doesn't match the record as far as what actually transpired in battles. AGA appears (I don't speak for the team, obviously) to have taken a position where fiddling the precise details is okay if it produces the right dynamic of how battles play out, which isn't surprising given that this is at its core a game about tactical battles, not an archery simulator. It isn't a situation with a clear cut right or wrong, of course - game design preferences and priorities vary.

[Shadeslayer]

I think this is an area where the game's level of abstraction from reality comes into play. In most 'realism' based gaming endeavors, be they tabletop or computerized, there comes a point where one needs to decide whether to focus on what I'll call technical accuracy or behavioral accuracy. Sometimes the solutions which best replicate the physical mechanics of things and those which produce the realistic / historical end result for such actions don't line up - then there's a judgement call on which to prioritize.

In this case, the troops in the game don't behave much like real people - they don't position shields well to catch arrows or use terrain cover, they'll willingly walk into an arrow hail without blinking an eye, happily stand still under fire unless expressly told otherwise... you've got a lot of compounding 'inaccuracies' or abstractions that, if you place them alongside (for example) a fully accurate (just determining what that actually looks like is well above my pay grade) model of javelin throwing, slinging, archery, what have you, you get a system which doesn't match the record as far as what actually transpired in battles. AGA appears (I don't speak for the team, obviously) to have taken a position where fiddling the precise details is okay if it produces the right dynamic of how battles play out, which isn't surprising given that this is at its core a game about tactical battles, not an archery simulator. It isn't a situation with a clear cut right or wrong, of course - game design preferences and priorities vary.

Of course I get all of that, and of course there are many limitations to how realistic the battles can get... and not all realism is good for gaming, this is all clear and natural. But I just can't understand how thousands of arrows can't kill a single guy from the cheapest unit. They're USELESS, what's the point in having them then? And Slingers are even worse, they sucked pretty bad in Vanilla too and this mod makes them completely useless unless they fight other Slingers.

And obviously I'm not too big on History, but I really don't think 1000 arrows wouldn't kill a single unarmoured guy. AFAIK arrows were always one of the deadliest ways to kill people. As it is in the mod now you're better off getting even Club Levies than Longbow Hunters or any other missile unit, as they don't do ANYTHING, not even a morale penalty. I understand that the AI spams missiles too much and that's part of the reason for these changes, but COME ON, making such a huge warfare part completely useless? And it wasn't exactly hard to counter the AI missile spam to begin with, all you need is 2 units of any basic cavalry or war dogs.

[xronaldz]

Hi a quick question:

I have been playing as Roman faction for almost 40+turns. Early in the game, I have been having difficulties fighting Libyan hoplites with my hastati. Later on, through reforms, I have gotten legionaries, and I still having problem with them. and here i thought sword units are supposed to be stronger than spear infantry. Is this normal? I am playing in very hard difficulties with no other unit bonus mods.

I love the mod by the way and thanks for the mod =D

[jamiedp88]

My archers when used properly actually are doing considerable damage and they are dropping the enemies morale enough to help melee units.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Maybe this thread is the right one to post about the texture addon pack though it is include in Dei also...

I have the grey colors issue and my units have lost their previous diversity...
Is patch 7 the culprit???? I think not cause when I'm not using the texture pack for AGA
my Libyan infantry for example have the same helmets...and I mean all of them...
But when I'm not using this mod my Libyan infantry has much more diversity...

Any ideas???

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

It is patch 7 See here
http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...-After-Patch-7

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

It is patch 7 See here
http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...-After-Patch-7

I know about Patch's 7 issues...
But when I'm not using AGA or DEI my unit's diversity is fine...
Different helmets etc

Using AGA texture pack

http://i.imgur.com/4sUhPdn.jpg

Vanilla

http://i.imgur.com/uiaKbAo.jpg

Both are Libyan Infantry extreme max settings
Just check the helmets...

[jamiedp88]

I know about Patch's 7 issues...
But when I'm not using AGA or DEI my unit's diversity is fine...
Different helmets etc

Using AGA texture pack

http://i.imgur.com/4sUhPdn.jpg

Vanilla

http://i.imgur.com/uiaKbAo.jpg

Both are Libyan Infantry extreme max settings
Just check the helmets...

DEI has an inbuilt texture pack, you don't need to use the AGA one.

[Simon.Fitoussi]

Hey i'm just curious about your monday update and whether or not it'll fix the slingers doing no damage. I want to play your divide and conquer mod but it doesn't have you awesome attack ground with pila like here.