Feedback & Feature Requests

[Muskelsteffen]

I agree with RGAs suggestion. Lifting high duties upon the satrapies would make them worth to establish. It would feel as if I really would have conquered some land and increased the size of my empire and a higher income would be a compensation for getting dragged into wars because some foolish neighbours thought that it woudl be a good idea to gnaw at the size of my empire.

[WayneRooney]

Can you include Dresden's great Hegomnia mod? It increases the power of carthage, selucidia, and Rome. It's annoying to see major factions fall to minor factions all the time. I've never played a game outside of dresdens mod where Carthage isn't punked off by Syracue, Lybia, or some one else.

[Axaios]

Silven, please fix the spacing for pike phalanx, it looks and plays awful now

[Axaios]

Now - in patch 7 beta I mean

[Ichigorukia]

After several releases do you think you can add additional campaigns for people to play aside from the vanilla one?

[Alpha195]

@UglySori

Thanks for the outstanding feedback! Elephants were recently nerfed, but its possible they may need even more adjustment. I'll look into them. It's probably a fix as simple as lowering their mass and HP.

Regarding bow range:
1)Gameplay proceeds Realism, always. The ranges are there to enforce gameplay balance, as the recurve and composite bows do more damage than normal bows.
2)Watch This

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I was actually planning to post a comment about the bows in the game when I saw this post, so it should make a good segue into my comment. The gentleman in the video is correct in that a more powerful bow requires a stronger archer; however, he disregards the fact that different bow designs are more or less efficient. This efficiency is measured by comparing the arrow velocity of two arrows of equal weight fired from equal poundage bows and is often referred to as the speed of the bow. Longbows, and other stick bows (non-recurved) are "slow" or "medium" speed bows, while recurve bows (and particularly composite recurve bows) are very "fast" bows indeed.

Range and penetration/damage are both related to the energy of the arrow, which is in turn predominately dependent on velocity of the arrow (Kinetic Energy = .5*mass*velocity^2).

Your current projectile model is as follows:
Longbows - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 180m
Slings - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 160m
Normal Bows - - - - - - - - - - - - - 140m
Recurve Bows - - - - - - - - - - - -135m
Composite Bows - - - - - - - - - -130m
Any Bow Using Flame Arrows- - - 130m
Mounted Bows - - - - - - - - - 120m
Javelins - - - - - - - - 80m

While I understand that you have selected a missile range cap for balance reasons, the order of missile from greatest to least is not realistic. For example: a modern 56 pound wood longbow (english style) has a arrow speed of 186 feet per second, while a modern 56 pound wood/horn/sinew composite bow (assyrian style) has an arrow speed of 237 feet per second. Assuming a theoretical projectile motion problem with a firing angle of 45 degrees, the longbow will fire its arrow 328 meters while the composite bow will fire 531.9 meters.

I believe the correct order of range should be (using 180m as the normalized maximum, and 80m as the normalized minimum):
Composite Bows/Mounted bows- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 180m
Longbows- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 160m
Slings - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -150m
Recurve Bows - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -140m
Bows using Flaming Arrows - - - - - -130m
Normal Bows - - - - - - - - - - - -120m
Javelins- - - - - - - - -80m

Accuracy for bows should be related to the weight of the arrow fired by the bow (higher weight means higher inertia, which makes it harder for the wind to blow off course). By this metric, Longbows should have the highest accuracy, followed by Recurve bows, Composite bows, and then Normal Bows. Damage should be proportional to range, with perhaps a slightly higher than proportional damage for a longbow, due to the weight of the arrow used.

While I understand that you have selected the maximum range for balance reasons, the low penetration of projectiles in this mod seriously hobbles the horse-archery factions of the game (Parthia, Nomads, etc). If you do not intend to increase penetration, I would ask that you at least consider increasing bow ranges to more realistic values (though 532 meters for horse archers may be unbalancing ), as this will allow more arrows to be fired before the unit must withdraw.

Thank you for your consideration, and I wish you and the mod all the success you deserve. Please let me know if I can offer any assistance on this, or other historical matters.

TL;DR: Relative ranges between different types of missiles is historically inaccurate, and may be contributing to the difficulty that horse archery factions experience as the expand and come against heavy infantry factions.

References Edit:

Composite bow arrow speed: http://www.grozerarchery.com/index_m.htm (well respected hungarian bowyer who makes historically accurate bows)
Longbow arrow speed: http://www.greenmanlongbows.co.uk/SP...hronometer.htm (I used a different source in order to compare equal poundage, but this one provides more data points)

[Xaero.xiii]

I also agree with the feature to increase the amount of payment a faction gets from client states/satrapies. That mean higher income for the overlord faction and lower income to the satrap/client state which in turn should cripple them economically enough that they shouldn't field more than 1-2 stack armies and only 1 navy.

@Alpha195 i agree with your presentation. However do you have any references for that? I think it would be a good idea to post a reference link to further give us detailed explanations on the matter. The possible changes from your suggestions would be a nice balance fix for parthia and the other nomadic factions, which i am also troubled by. Hopefully this gets taken into account soon.

[Alpha195]

I have edited my post with references for the bow speeds. If there other points that you would like specifically referenced, let me know.

[tomFoolery]

I was actually planning to post a comment about the bows in the game when I saw this post, so it should make a good segue into my comment. The gentleman in the video is correct in that a more powerful bow requires a stronger archer; however, he disregards the fact that different bow designs are more or less efficient. This efficiency is measured by comparing the arrow velocity of two arrows of equal weight fired from equal poundage bows and is often referred to as the speed of the bow. Longbows, and other stick bows (non-recurved) are "slow" or "medium" speed bows, while recurve bows (and particularly composite recurve bows) are very "fast" bows indeed.

Range and penetration/damage are both related to the energy of the arrow, which is in turn predominately dependent on velocity of the arrow (Kinetic Energy = .5*mass*velocity^2).

Your current projectile model is as follows:
Longbows - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 180m
Slings - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 160m
Normal Bows - - - - - - - - - - - - - 140m
Recurve Bows - - - - - - - - - - - -135m
Composite Bows - - - - - - - - - -130m
Any Bow Using Flame Arrows- - - 130m
Mounted Bows - - - - - - - - - 120m
Javelins - - - - - - - - 80m

While I understand that you have selected a missile range cap for balance reasons, the order of missile from greatest to least is not realistic. For example: a modern 56 pound wood longbow (english style) has a arrow speed of 186 feet per second, while a modern 56 pound wood/horn/sinew composite bow (assyrian style) has an arrow speed of 237 feet per second. Assuming a theoretical projectile motion problem with a firing angle of 45 degrees, the longbow will fire its arrow 328 meters while the composite bow will fire 531.9 meters.

I believe the correct order of range should be (using 180m as the normalized maximum, and 80m as the normalized minimum):
Composite Bows/Mounted bows- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 180m
Longbows- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 160m
Slings - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -150m
Recurve Bows - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -140m
Bows using Flaming Arrows - - - - - -130m
Normal Bows - - - - - - - - - - - -120m
Javelins- - - - - - - - -80m

Accuracy for bows should be related to the weight of the arrow fired by the bow (higher weight means higher inertia, which makes it harder for the wind to blow off course). By this metric, Longbows should have the highest accuracy, followed by Recurve bows, Composite bows, and then Normal Bows. Damage should be proportional to range, with perhaps a slightly higher than proportional damage for a longbow, due to the weight of the arrow used.

While I understand that you have selected the maximum range for balance reasons, the low penetration of projectiles in this mod seriously hobbles the horse-archery factions of the game (Parthia, Nomads, etc). If you do not intend to increase penetration, I would ask that you at least consider increasing bow ranges to more realistic values (though 532 meters for horse archers may be unbalancing ), as this will allow more arrows to be fired before the unit must withdraw.

Thank you for your consideration, and I wish you and the mod all the success you deserve. Please let me know if I can offer any assistance on this, or other historical matters.

TL;DR: Relative ranges between different types of missiles is historically inaccurate, and may be contributing to the difficulty that horse archery factions experience as the expand and come against heavy infantry factions.

References Edit:

Composite bow arrow speed: http://www.grozerarchery.com/index_m.htm (well respected hungarian bowyer who makes historically accurate bows)
Longbow arrow speed: http://www.greenmanlongbows.co.uk/SP...hronometer.htm (I used a different source in order to compare equal poundage, but this one provides more data points)

I know I'd love to see a stronger missile weapon overhaul in STIM with these sorts of things taken into account.

[Carthago]

Hey, really like your mod, in my opinion the best AI Mod so far.
There are a few things I personally don't like in the game that haven't been affected by your mod.
First of all, I still recognize the AI invading the territory of another nation by embarking their fleet although they have a land frontier with this nation. That often means that the armies of the two nations invade the territory of the other nation without fighting with each other (Nation A invades the other territoy by sea, Nation B invades the opposite territory by land). So, is it possible to tell the AI not to attack by sea if it's possible to attack it by land (reducing the possibility of an AI embarking their fleets drastically)? Furthermor it would be nice if you could increase the Movement Point Cost of an army embarking.

The second thing I really hate is that the AI is spending so much on agents. That's so annoying, I want to fight armies and not agents. Might it be possible to drastically decrease the Agent Recruitment Flavor of the AI in general and to totally delete agent actions (only the bribe/assassinate etc. ones, not the specific Actions of an agent like training the army)?

I don't know if that is compatible to your ideas but if it's not complicated to solve my issues, could you maybe create a mini-sub-mod with this features? Would be very nice!

[Entotz]

Hello,
Please fix a bug where Silven is missing from this sub forum

Thanks!

[Silven]

Hello,
Please fix a bug where Silven is missing from this sub forum

Thanks!

Bug Resolved.

[rgreat]

Please disable AI spending's on agents.

I'm used such a mod, it definitely make games more fun and less tedious.
AI agents are just continuous nuisance, while spending a lot of money on them make AI armies weaker.

[Cavalier]

Any thoughts on removing Forced march/Double time? Personally I think that these features are something of a game-breaker. The AI seems to not sail around the Mediterranean as frequently too. If removed, I'd advice beefing up the movement points for navies by 20% or so.

[Silven]

@rgreat
I'm not going to completely remove agents from the game or remove the ability of the AI to use them. I already have, however, nerfed several overpowered agent abilities and greatly reduced the amount of spending the AI is allowed to make on agents.

@Cavalier
Ya actually I've been giving this one a lot of thought, and I haven't come to a decision yet. As the player, it's a really convenient thing to have once your empire grows to a big size. But taking it away from the AI would definitely be pretty valuable, since they still seem to use it at times that make no sense. I haven't decided yet, but right now I'm leaning towards yes.

[Cavalier]

@rgreat
I'm not going to completely remove agents from the game or remove the ability of the AI to use them. I already have, however, nerfed several overpowered agent abilities and greatly reduced the amount of spending the AI is allowed to make on agents.

@Cavalier
Ya actually I've been giving this one a lot of thought, and I haven't come to a decision yet. As the player, it's a really convenient thing to have once your empire grows to a big size. But taking it away from the AI would definitely be pretty valuable, since they still seem to use it at times that make no sense. I haven't decided yet, but right now I'm leaning towards yes.

Alright!

[rgreat]

I think Forced march/Double time bonuses must be reduced or penalties must be increased over time.

[rgreat]

@rgreat
I'm not going to completely remove agents from the game or remove the ability of the AI to use them. I already have, however, nerfed several overpowered agent abilities and greatly reduced the amount of spending the AI is allowed to make on agents.

As you with, i can always mod it myself.

[KAM 2150]

Well, the worst thing about forced march is that AI gets ambused all the time, in my last campaign actually around 3/4 of all battles were ambushes.

[Silven]

Well, the worst thing about forced march is that AI gets ambused all the time, in my last campaign actually around 3/4 of all battles were ambushes.

Ya, after extensive play-testing of my own, and the feedback from more than a few of you, I've decided to get rid of it. Forced March will be removed and Base Movement Ranges will be increased to compensate in the next patch.

KAM I'm surprised to see you in here! I thought you were a pretty avid DeI supporter? At any rate I appreciate your feedback!