RS2's Future and Mod Ideas:

[ur-Lord Tedric]

.......................
The skirmishers, especially javelin bearers, are ineffective at skirmishing. There is little point to screening battles as they had in history because of the lack of danger that skirmishing units pose. They work fine as flanking units, and archers have and impact without dominating the battlefield, but everything else provides no danger to the enemy's front or your own. .............

Dealing with just the skirmishers first - for you raise a few other points...

What is your historical evidence that skirmishers should be more effective? What is it you think skirmishers are for? It's not for damage dealing I assure you.

They certainly work perfectly well as a screen - and will both absorb missile damage without much loss and keep the enemy skirmishers away. They are also brilliant at semi-deterring the enemy from maneuvering as they are pretty damn good from the flanks as you note.

Overall, why do you think (more evidence) that light javelins fired into the front of well armoured and shielded troops should cause much if any damage?

Finally I will note that classic (ie from the Greek Tactical manuals) psiloi (light infantry skirmishers) pretty much go out of fashion not long into our period.....and there's a reason for that.

For my money, the skirmishers we have are pretty damn good at performing their functions - screening the main line and threatening the flanks.

Overall - addressing your main idea full on - if 'missile fire' in general (particularly from the rear when 'panic' would have even more effect) - were increased further, flank and rear attacks would become really stupid!

Having tried and tested - Shields were increased to lower the effect of bowfire, but not that much, and they are only effective front and left flank and, luckily, shields are not affected by the upgrades. Armour is where the balance is drawn, to make the fights decent and keep ridiculous damage down. AP would only increase damage and negate that - panic is just as bad as above.

Interestingly - addressing the other point - reducing charge bonus for cavalry, and maybe unit size, could be balanced if cavalry caused a bit more panic.......

Being a bit of a purist - I'd like to see ALL the Late Auxilia Roman cavalry be missile armed like the Batavians and Pannonians - with the exception of the HA (rare) and the Kontos-armed for an option.

[dvk901]

Still working furiously on RS2 settlements...just an update so you know I haven't quit.

New palaces and colonnades in Rome:


Updated an enhanced Forum Romanum:


New Basilica added to Rome:


Redone Roman tenament building:


Rome is finished. The Roman settlements that will be used in Italy and Sicily are all finished (town to huge city).
The default Roman large and huge city is done....working on the Roman city level which will include a fort on a hill surrounded by the settlement. It currently looks like this, but it's not finished:


This particular settlement 'set' will progress from a town with a complete fort in it (styled after archaeological reconstructions as much as possible), that grows through stages where the fort walls are all that's left at the city level, and then gone at the large city and huge city level. The intention is to better represent the 'colonization' of the Romans around forts and fortifications.

When the Romans are finished I will start on the Greeks, because I need to know what I will have available to use in Eastern and Egyptian settlements. I basically had to step back and plan all this out a bit better, because I was getting too confused and excited about all the things I could do....and the things I WANT to do.

Reposted here since I originally put it in the wrong place.

[mr mojo risin]

Still working furiously on RS2 settlements...just an update so you know I haven't quit.

New palaces and colonnades in Rome:


Updated an enhanced Forum Romanum:


New Basilica added to Rome:


Redone Roman tenament building:


Rome is finished. The Roman settlements that will be used in Italy and Sicily are all finished (town to huge city).
The default Roman large and huge city is done....working on the Roman city level which will include a fort on a hill surrounded by the settlement. It currently looks like this, but it's not finished:


This particular settlement 'set' will progress from a town with a complete fort in it (styled after archaeological reconstructions as much as possible), that grows through stages where the fort walls are all that's left at the city level, and then gone at the large city and huge city level. The intention is to better represent the 'colonization' of the Romans around forts and fortifications.

When the Romans are finished I will start on the Greeks, because I need to know what I will have available to use in Eastern and Egyptian settlements. I basically had to step back and plan all this out a bit better, because I was getting too confused and excited about all the things I could do....and the things I WANT to do.

Reposted here since I originally put it in the wrong place.

how wonderful.

[Miszel]

Are u planning to use the possibilities unlocked by memory editing?
You already have readdy additional factions, like Bithynia, Massalia, Pergamon, Galatia etc, would be amazing to put them all together in one campaign.

[tungri_centurio]

great idea to build the roman settlement around the fort.maybe thats an option also for roman towns, walled fort in the midddle holding the square and unwalled settlement around it.
and only the stone wall shoud be buildable from large city onwards?so you have an unwalled settlement when town,large town and city.

iv played the new RTR project recently and they have a verry nice wooden wall model,it looks perfect to use as fort walls and for the fort like you used inside the settlement.
maybe ask permission to use it. gonna take a picture from it and post it here....

Sleepysmoo and florin80 for their Wall Mod.they made the mod i believe

[IMG][/IMG][IMG][/IMG][IMG][/IMG]

[Stath's]

Great work!!

[romanius24]

I have played XC a lot and it also had those wooden walls.
They are very fun to play with but they didnt have animations for collapse of sections/towers.
Not sure if thats hardcoded or if it was a problem with the mod.


I think it would be interesting to add them to the mod since we wont have large and epic walls anymore.
They are not too tall and they could be the second level wall.
Pelisade>Wooden Wall>Stone Wall
It would also give barbarians more choice in walls(not just fence or stone).

[dvk901]

New Roman fort:



Actually found the barracks buildings for this fort (the long ones that are lined up in rows) existent in the game...though they were never used anywhere. Pictured you will see the Preatorium in the center, the Principium behind it, a cavalry barracks in the far left corner, and a couple granaries.

I'm thinking of using this layout as the default 'Roman Town'....adding a few buildings so as to follow the theme that Roman settlements were often built up around existing forts.

[AnthoniusII]

New Roman fort:



Actually found the barracks buildings for this fort (the long ones that are lined up in rows) existent in the game...though they were never used anywhere. Pictured you will see the Preatorium in the center, the Principium behind it, a cavalry barracks in the far left corner, and a couple granaries.

I'm thinking of using this layout as the default 'Roman Town'....adding a few buildings so as to follow the theme that Roman settlements were often built up around existing forts.

Is there a way of replacing "wooden palisade with wooden walls" for the fort?

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Now that's very nice! And whilst I look at it and think of those little arrow towers - can I make a little plea when you are looking at your towns and the early wooden walls? For there often seems to be a massive distance between towers and/or just missing or in the wrong places - and it would be nice if they did cause at least a few casualties.

[dvk901]

Now that's very nice! And whilst I look at it and think of those little arrow towers - can I make a little plea when you are looking at your towns and the early wooden walls? For there often seems to be a massive distance between towers and/or just missing or in the wrong places - and it would be nice if they did cause at least a few casualties.

I'll check them out.....it may be just a limitation in how the walls are put together by RTW, but I'll see what I can do.

Speaking of forts, I have an idea I want to run by people before I actually DO it, because it's a bit of radical change from what people are used to regarding forts. LT1956 explained to me not long ago why the AI doesn't attack forts the way it should...this was a 'bug' actually introduced by patch 1.3. Apparently, there is a discrepancy between how many turns the AI 'thinks' it needs to wait in order to attack the fort during a siege, and the actual number of turns it DOES have to wait. The AI 'thinks' it has to wait three turns, but the game says it has to wait two turns...the result is that the AI will never assault a fort. You just end up waiting two turns, and then you go to the battlefield and you have to sally out of the fort to attack the AI...it will not attack you.

I often wondered why that was, but had no explanation. What I propose to fix this would fix two things, actually. First, it would allow forts to have stone walls....which they cannot now have (as the AI will never have the right equipment to attack them anyway). BUT....if I set the stone walls in place already, and use the 'borders' from another settlement layout, there can be stone walls, but the gates will always be 'open'. In this case, the AI will likely attack a fort quickly (within the one or two turn limit), and would need no siege equipment. I haven't tested this, but I think it would solve this problem.

What do people think? I think it would make forts a bit more interesting, and not force the player to always have to sally forth to engage the AI. Instead, you'd have to defend the gates, and you could have men on the walls.

[High Fist]

First, it would allow forts to have stone walls.... but the gates will always be 'open'.

Hm, I'd like to see some pictures of that first. I don't think I like the idea, only because of the stone walls. They're bloody huge.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

...............
Speaking of forts, I have an idea I want to run by people before I actually DO it, ...............
What do people think? .............

Ummm, I've never seen this and use a lot of forts. Now, whilst I tend to not have many fort battles (because I relieve those forts) I do have them and the AI will assault. In fact I will sometimes have the 'glitch' that the AI manages to assault the forts with 'instant' rams and manages to assault the turn it arrives and lays siege (which can certainly prove 'interesting'!).

So, in short - I've not experienced this and am not convinced there is a problem. That said, there are instances when the AI will choose to lift the siege early.

Given the comment that players may feel they have to sally forth to have the battle - then this may just be that the AI has decided that the player's forces are just too strong to assault (sensible AI perhaps?). Just about all my forts are 'border forts' and contain only one unit (often very weak) and the AI will assault just fine.

[High Fist]

Ummm, I've never seen this and use a lot of forts. Now, whilst I tend to not have many fort battles (because I relieve those forts)

That's why you've never seen them. How could you see them starve the fort out if you relieve the siege before the fort surrenders?

Trust me, they do it all the time. They'd only attack if they're a stack against one unit and there aren't any other armies around.

[dvk901]

Ummm, I've never seen this and use a lot of forts. Now, whilst I tend to not have many fort battles (because I relieve those forts) I do have them and the AI will assault. In fact I will sometimes have the 'glitch' that the AI manages to assault the forts with 'instant' rams and manages to assault the turn it arrives and lays siege (which can certainly prove 'interesting'!).

So, in short - I've not experienced this and am not convinced there is a problem. That said, there are instances when the AI will choose to lift the siege early.

Given the comment that players may feel they have to sally forth to have the battle - then this may just be that the AI has decided that the player's forces are just too strong to assault (sensible AI perhaps?). Just about all my forts are 'border forts' and contain only one unit (often very weak) and the AI will assault just fine.

That's why you've never seen them. How could you see them starve the fort out if you relieve the siege before the fort surrenders?

Trust me, they do it all the time. They'd only attack if they're a stack against one unit and there aren't any other armies around.

Hmm...if it is a matter of the strength of the garrison...then you are right....the AI will make a decision often not to attack. It could be that this 'bug' is in fact not a bug at all.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Do you see them use forts?I think i noticed 2 in my entire time playing RS2.
Maybe C.Difficulty affects fort usage?
When i say attack i mean assault the fort.90% of the times they just starve me out.

They certainly don't regularly use forts - but I do and have seen them (bearing in mind FOW is normally on, so there's only a limited view). And they do attack forts.

That's why you've never seen them. How could you see them starve the fort out if you relieve the siege before the fort surrenders?

Trust me, they do it all the time. They'd only attack if they're a stack against one unit and there aren't any other armies around.

Well, the purpose of the forts (the way I play) is classically Roman and that's the reason for the rapidly moving legion reaction forces - and so they are relieved if I can get to them. Sometimes you cannot, however, and starving is not common - they will normally attack within two turns (often with multiple rams).

One of the reasons, of course, why some players don't see the AI using forts is because they are playing on 0turn. 0turn is only for lots of battles and the campaign is pretty pants - for the AI spends all its money on armies and very little in infrastructure and won't leave any for forts. That's why settlements are often barely enhanced and there are precious few roads. If you want a decent campaign then play 1turn - which is the original vanilla design in any case.

[romanius24]

Making towers more dangerous is an interesting idea.
Capturing one would be a bigger deal in the first phase of an assault and since DVK is getting rid of Epic walls/towers that fire nukes they wont be as important(in their current state).

[dvk901]

As I suspected, you can't connect a tower section to another tower section...there needs to be a straight section in between them. I actually changed the wall layout by substituting a tower section for a straight, and the game just ignored it.

The Romans are finished for now, anyway......on to the Greeks!!

[romanius24]

I like your idea of improving the forts but i think the AI will get into a bottleneck at the gate.
Maybe you can have the fort walls damaged a bit when the siege starts to give the attacker more options.


To be honest i had no idea that forts in RS2 looked differently than vanilla.
The AI never really attacks them and also never uses them.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

.............
The AI never really attacks them and also never uses them.

Definitely not true.