Divide et Impera (Divide & Rule) - Main Thread

[Aethyr]

I know where both of you are coming from, I am assuming Atikas would prefer more men on the ground (and in our own minds some would represent dead, others wounded) rather than 'walking wounded' with only a few kills.

The main issue with this I have found is that in campaign I am constantly fighting the same army over and over as even with cav I just can't seem to mop up enough of the routing forces, THAT SAID, i am enjoying the pace, and obviously it is a non issue in custom.

Antikas Karios, perhaps sit out a few versions and check it back out as the mod develops, it may evolve into something you prefer, or it may not.

Selea has to answer a lot of (sometimes stupid)questions on here, along with the mod work he does, its no wonder he gets frustrated at times so give him a break, they are still very early in development and if the past has anything to prove, its that things will change a lot by the time a 'final' is released.

[Durador]

DeI team - I really like it that this mod makes it all more historical correct. But i think you as a team maybe have to explain a bit more when things you change are not a bug (what some people think) but a historical adaption.
There are a lot of misunderstanding in this. I think if you guys tell us your vision of a real battlefield in the OP, more people would understand that the work you guys do is for that goal.

[Selea]

DeI team - I really like it that this mod makes it all more historical correct. But i think you as a team maybe have to explain a bit more when things you change are not a bug (what some people think) but a historical adaption.
There are a lot of misunderstanding in this. I think if you guys tell us your vision of a real battlefield in the OP, more people would understand that the work you guys do is for that goal.

I plan to do it, in fact and it is a good advice, thanks.

It's only that atm I don't have the time to do it properly, but rest assured that it will be done.

[il Pitta]

I think that the casualty rate in ancient battles depends A LOT on the tactical approach used by the contendants, therefore the period you want to refer to.

In "The Wester Art of War" Hanson states that in hoplite battles the LOSING SIDE suffered normally 12% of casualties before disbanding, that is fairly not a lot... moreover, the biggest part of these happened during the first clash between the formations.

However, when hoplitism progressively lose popularity in favor to more efficient (and deadly) approaches to the battlefiled, casualty rates grew A LOT, partially for the huge employment of throwing weapons and shock&charge tactics.

e.d.
At Cynoscephalae the Romans, that actually won, suffered 2000 casuaties and injuried on an overall army of 33400, while the Macedonian suffered 5000 casualties and 1000 injuried on an overall army of 25500.
At Trebia Hannibal suffered 5000 casualties on an overall army of 30000, while the Romans loss more or less 30000 on an overall army of 42000.
At Munda Caesar suffered 1000 casualties on an overall army of 40000, while Pompey -the losing side- lost 30000 on an overall army of 70000.

[Selea]

I think that the casualty rate in ancient battles depends A LOT on the tactical approach used by the contendants, therefore the period you want to refer to.

In "The Wester Art of War" Hanson states that in hoplite battles the LOSING SIDE suffered normally 12% of casualties before disbanding, that is fairly not a lot... moreover, the biggest part of these happened during the first clash between the formations.

However, when hoplitism progressively lose popularity in favor to more efficient (and deadly) approaches to the battlefiled, casualty rates grew A LOT, partially for the huge employment of throwing weapons and shock&charge tactics.

e.d.
At Cynoscephalae the Romans, that actually won, suffered 2000 casuaties and injuried on an overall army of 33400, while the Macedonian suffered 5000 casualties and 1000 injuried on an overall army of 25500.
At Trebia Hannibal suffered 5000 casualties on an overall army of 30000, while the Romans loss more or less 30000 on an overall army of 42000.
At Munda Caesar suffered 1000 casualties on an overall army of 40000, while Pompey -the losing side- lost 30000 on an overall army of 70000.

And in fact many of the complaints here come from units in Hoplite formation. There's where the less casualties come from (and the very slow killing rate; I made Hoplite units purely defensive; they will cause very low kills along themselves not being killed, it is the typical anvil tactic of the anvil and hammer tactic of Macedon for example, where cavalry is the hammer part).

In normal sword units the casualty is about 25%-30%, for elite it can come to 50%.

But naturally if you use Shield Wall, for example, the speed of killing rate lowers by a lot since it is a defending formation (and as such also casualties will lower).

EDIT:

Btw looking at your numbers the casualties in the mod are way higher than realistic ones, as you see, so I would actually have to lower them not certainly increasing them.

For example on the side winning the casualties are no more than 15%, the vast majority of the unit losses in losing armies (as in the example of the Roman army against Hannibal) were against routing units, not on normal combat.

Sadly for now I cannot find a way to make routing units less powerful or I would already have done it. That's the only problem that it has now this approach, for the rest it is actually working very realistically (it's only on elite units that it goes a little too far on killing rates, but see how many people complain already, do you imagine what it will happen if players with their great oathsworns will rout @ 140 men normally...).

[xernoxis]

Hi and thank you for a great mod.

In you features list it says that recruitment time is slowed down, however all my units still use 1 turn to build. Is this a feature to come or something gone bad?
Also it would be nice to see what version the steam modshop is. It doesn't say which version and there is nothing in the changelog. Not that I have a problem with downloading from TWC.

Keep up the good work, I can't wait to see where this is going.

[Selea]

Hi and thank you for a great mod.

In you features list it says that recruitment time is slowed down, however all my units still use 1 turn to build. Is this a feature to come or something gone bad?
Also it would be nice to see what version the steam modshop is. It doesn't say which version and there is nothing in the changelog. Not that I have a problem with downloading from TWC.

Keep up the good work, I can't wait to see where this is going.

It was in the very first version, then I removed it (apart for some units) because it was too slow to recruit armies normally, so I just removed the increased recruit times but slower replenishment etc. are all there.

[xernoxis]

It was in the very first version, then I removed it (apart for some units) because it was too slow to recruit armies normally, so I just removed the increased recruit times but slower replenishment etc. are all there.

Alright thanks for reply. I just tried 0.4b and Carthage units (I believe lybian spears) don't have any weapons or shield. They don't cause any casualities because of this.

[krunsh]

One more thing. I had slingers and skirmishers shooting at a until of idle pike (Dumb AI!) for a while. Yet, zero casualties. I believe I also had no casualties due to ranged attacks.

[michaelpap]

i suggest everyone cools down..the modding team has made a great job.
selea, i have a degree from university of athens on history - for greek formations casualties , and what was the duration of battle you are partly correct.it is true that
most city states armies had very few casualties and the reason of their defeat was moral..but from the 4th century onwards battle changed - at first Ificrates defetead
spartans outside Nemea by using peltasts. approx 600 spartans died (xenophon ELLINIKA).
then we have the battle of Leuktra -approx 700 spartans died including their king Cleombrotos.
then there is the battle of mantineia...
surely during the 5th century bc greek battlefields were a lot different , considering the fact that only spartans were professional warriors and the rest were just farmers..
now if we turn our focus in the west during 3rd and 2nd century bc , we have huge battles with numerous victims..romans vs carthaginians , romans vs greeks etc.
i personally don't expect a game full of massacres and i repeat that you have done a great job.i trust that you will make some corrections and give us a realistic battlefield.

[krunsh]

Thanks for the great work on the mod. I personally have lots of issues with it at the moment after doing a few battles as Sparta against Epirus (Thats before the last patch that just came out now.):
- Banners are not flashing when wavering and not disappearing when routed.
- Phalanx itself seems to work well enough, but the formation attack toggle really messes things up for me. It only seems to work if I take a charge face on or attack with one unit only, otherwise the unit shows all kinds of weird behavior such has trying to move exactly over where another unit is already fighting the enemy instead of flanking (Exposing its flank during the maneuver.). I understand that this might be due to the core game and unrelated to this mod.. Or maybe I just don't get how it works. I guess I will simply not use formation attack.
- Ranged units on skirmish mod seems to run and then not turn back to keep on firing. They instead stand idle facing the wrong way.
- I know the multipliers were changed for flanking and moral, but please take into consideration sieging for these numbers. My hoplites would route in under 5 seconds after climbing a ladder due to the archers on the wall instantly ''Flanking'' them (Due to how they jump down in the middle of the archer unit.). Pretty frustrating.

In general, I would say I very much enjoy the campaign changes, but the battlefield was a bit of a mess (Though I can see the goal and the potential for the future.).

I would also like to add that (And with all due respect for your work, Selea.) ''Atikas Kanos'' was never out of line and simply asked questions (You may consider them stupid, but they are still simply questions.). He did not insult anyone, he inquired information and gave an opinion which many had brought up before (Not that it matter.). I feel like your way of answering to him was hardly appropriate, and I must say Atikas, you are a saint for keeping your calm unlike most would have done.

I understand that a lot of stress and pressure comes with working so hard on something (And that is why companies like CA put lots of money in hiring people that are good at handling the community in calm and respect.). I believe an apology, or at least a statement that there was a misunderstanding (I do not know if a language barriere is involved.) and clearly an over-reaction, would go a long way into keeping the respect of the community. This is not exactly the kind of reactions that I wish to see in the future if I am to follow this mod. Atika may be right or wrong, and his knowledge of ancient warfare maybe good or bad (I know mine is decent at best.), but it does no explain such a lack of respect in any way, shape or form.

With this said, peace and great work. I will keep my eyes on this mod for sure

[Selea]

Thanks for the great work on the mod. I personally have lots of issues with it at the moment after doing a few battles as Sparta against Epirus (Thats before the last patch that just came out now.):
- Banners are not flashing when wavering and not disappearing when routed.

Nothing has changed on it.

- Phalanx itself seems to work well enough, but the formation attack toggle really messes things up for me. It only seems to work if I take a charge face on or attack with one unit only, otherwise the unit shows all kinds of weird behavior such has trying to move exactly over where another unit is already fighting the enemy instead of flanking (Exposing its flank during the maneuver.). I understand that this might be due to the core game and unrelated to this mod.. Or maybe I just don't get how it works. I guess I will simply not use formation attack.

Nothing has changed on it.

- Ranged units on skirmish mod seems to run and then not turn back to keep on firing. They instead stand idle facing the wrong way.

Nothing has changed on it.

- I know the multipliers were changed for flanking and moral, but please take into consideration sieging for these numbers. My hoplites would route in under 5 seconds after climbing a ladder due to the archers on the wall instantly ''Flanking'' them (Due to how they jump down in the middle of the archer unit.). Pretty frustrating.

The difference from prior 0.4 and 0.4b is now a whooping +5. Looot of changing.

You say that you were fine with previous versions and now not, but nothing has changed on all you mention.

I am at a loss, people. Please let's be serious, ok?

[DerUhu]

Thank you for the great mod.
I personally was fine with the killing rates in .4a . On The romans already inflicted heavy losses in the campaign battles. I'll try the .4b hoping the killingrate is not getting so high again. I have the feeling that reducing the accuracy of missile weapons while slightly increasing the punch might be worth a try. [We once tried to throw spears in a group the result was not that good (but absolutely untrained as we were that might not say anything).]

[Selea]

Thank you for the great mod.
I personally was fine with the killing rates in .4a . On The romans already inflicted heavy losses in the campaign battles. I'll try the .4b hoping the killingrate is not getting so high again.

No don't worry. Killing rate will stay low. I just tweaked it slightly to improve the power of cavalry on a flank rear charge.

[MaxDex]

Hi, amazing work with this mod i love it, and i tried it from its first relase, and i have a question:

Now for recruit a unit i spend 1 turn, is normal? i do this question because on firsts relase i have to spend 3 turns

[Detroit Jones]

Had just enough time this morning for 1 quick battle, 1600 Spartan spears vs. about 1900 Romans - I took about 450 casualties and the Romans took almost 700 before routing - to me these numbers are a great compromise between historical accuracy and gamey-ness. I also had Roman cavalry try 2 flanking charges which was great to see. Keep up the great work guys, this mod makes the game MUCH more fun. Thanks!

[Moody]

Just as an aside the problem with rear charges not causing casualties is one of HP and the new combat system in Rome 2.

The Soldiers in the rear ranks avoid most the missile + melee damage which means they are mostly at full hp - this coupled with high armour can negate a large amount of the charges damage unless the charge value or damage value are unreasonable high - this means they survive the initial charge but go from high to low hp which means a second charge (or more) are required to kill them.

This is the same effect as watching Javelins or Slingers attack a high armour unit - the first few volleys seem to do no damage because the armour is negating a lot of the damage but 3 or 4 volleys in suddenly large numbers will start to die since you have depleted their hp...

[Selea]

Just as an aside the problem with rear charges not causing casualties is one of HP and the new combat system in Rome 2.

The Soldiers in the rear ranks avoid most the missile + melee damage which means they are mostly at full hp - this coupled with high armour can negate a large amount of the charges damage unless the charge value or damage value are unreasonable high - this means they survive the initial charge but go from high to low hp which means a second charge (or more) are required to kill them.

This is the same effect as watching Javelins or Slingers attack a high armour unit - the first few volleys seem to do no damage because the armour is negating a lot of the damage but 3 or 4 volleys in suddenly large numbers will start to die since you have depleted their hp...

Exactly. People don't understand that there's a wounding system behind Rome II. HP is the health an unit has.

Units will get first wounded, then they will die. This is realistic. However people expect the huge killing numbers immediately on everything they do, like playing on Starcraft or Warhammer. If they don't see 10 kills after the first 30 seconds they wonder immediately if the mod works; if the cavalry charge doesn't kill immediately 50 men then the charge didn't work and so on and so forth.

People don't die immediately, they first get wounded then slowly die and before they do they try to save their lives as much as they can and will do everything in their power to do so (adrenaline also let you fight much more powerfully than before when you are wounded). The same is against a cavalry charge. While some men will be killed, the vast majority on the first impact will not die, they will just have broken bones etc. Even Cataphracts didn't kill 1000 men on a single charge, at most they killed 100 (do a scale value and see how much that is in game terms).

Same if for arrows etc. They wound people mostly, for killing they are not so powerful. I'm at a loss, seriously. The more I make this mod realistic the more people complain. Maybe CA was right on making the vanilla game as in that way because all in all I see that this is what the majority of people want.

AGA was so liked because all in all it was arcadish in the way it behaved. The high reliance on special abilities, the high killing rate, the extremely powerful cavalry. I understand all people having their tastes, but sincerely I cannot understand how an high killing rate can make the game more enjoyable. I just tried 3 battles with the new version of DeI and then the same in AGA and there's a so great difference in realism and pace that I really cannot understand how people can find it better as it did work before.

Just with the fact of the higher kiling rates it is difficult to position well your troops because they die so fast and AGA was one of the slower mods out there. Now you have all the time to bring reserves and flank, rear attack, or disengage and bring in reserves etc. etc.

[PumkinKing]

Exactly. People don't understand that there's a wounding system behind Rome II. HP is the health an unit has.

Units will get first wounded, then they will die. This is realistic. However people expect the huge killing numbers immediately on everything they do, like playing on Starcraft or Warhammer. If they don't see 10 kills after the first 30 seconds they wonder immediately if the mod works; if the cavalry charge doesn't kill immediately 50 men then the charge didn't work and so on and so forth.

People don't die immediately, they first get wounded then slowly die and before they do they try to save their lives as much as they can and will do everything in their power to do so (adrenaline also let you fight much more powerfully than before when you are wounded). The same is against a cavalry charge. While some men will be killed, the vast majority on the first impact will not die, they will just have broken bones etc. Even Cataphracts didn't kill 1000 men on a single charge, at most they killed 100 (do a scale value and see how much that is in game terms).

Same if for arrows etc. They wound people mostly, for killing they are not so powerful. I'm at a loss, seriously. The more I make this mod realistic the more people complain. Maybe CA was right on making the vanilla game as in that way because all in all I see that this is what the majority of people want.

AGA was so liked because all in all it was arcadish in the way it behaved. The high reliance on special abilities, the high killing rate, the extremely powerful cavalry. I understand all people having their tastes, but sincerely I cannot understand how an high killing rate can make the game more enjoyable. I just tried 3 battles with the new version of DeI and then the same in AGA and there's a so great difference in realism and pace that I really cannot understand how people can find it better as it did work before.

Just with the fact of the higher kiling rates it is difficult to position well your troops because they die so fast and AGA was one of the slower mods out there. Now you have all the time to bring reserves and flank, rear attack, or disengage and bring in reserves etc. etc.

@Selea
hey selea i think you are mostly right,

many people are probably just used to the old game mechanics that should you understand. I think the new loss mechanisms are completely realistic.
If 2 Polis declared war on eachother, they have not fought each other millions of men and the armies were not only fearless fighters (front and rear battle Experienced men and inexperienced in the middle). If two phalanxes are mutually marches, that was an ever lasting battle and it cost lots of energy. However, one should not forget the different warfare tactics from time and locations.
Many are simply used to destroy the army of the enemy and then take the city. Now its more a war then ever before(Imagine in ancient times, armies would have almost completely wiped out every time they battle, that would be both uneconomical and impossible). In addition you lose not always all troops and they can get experienced troops. The experience of professional soldiers and veterans should be very important.(Your armys are much more personal)
Maybe now is also an opportunity to rethink that armies are not always destroyed and maybe you could increase the recruitment time again ?

ED I: I think when now the CAI would handle this features perfect War with every nation would be a greater gameexperience.

@Meneros

Alright, here's a more representative picture of what the unit will look like. The colours haven't been finalized yet, and we're also looking at ways of making the shield look more authentically greek.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Lastly new greek tunics were recently added, which are used principally by the Thureophoroi.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Awesome work, keep it up. I really like how you now can see the influence of the roman culutre

I hope it will not stop at the mediterannen and eastern factions?!

[est Dudus]

Hey Selea

Well, you never respond to me (I don't know how you respond to anyone---YOU ARE A BEAST! LOL) but I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.
I love the direction you are taking the mod----I totally agree about how units route and they would sometimes just route cause they did not want to fight. My concern is that this is a game and maybe trying to get the units to react in a absolute realistic way might be reaching a bit too far. The battles are becoming either extremely short or very long with almost no casualties. I like the very long battles! LOL

So, I tested out 5 different custom battles and 6 battles from my lets play and here is just a what I saw---DON'T GET MAD LOL!

Calvary is just to powerful----not all of them, but most. What I mean by this is instead of flanking and doing a charge to shock troops, I saw them in all the battles fighting in prolonged melee and taking almost 0 casualties and crushing my legions. Now, this would be realistic if I had inexperienced troops, however, in my campaign I had maxed out troops that where just decimated in long prolonged battles with cav. That is the first thing I saw, next was the routing.

So, I love the idea of men "Freaking out" and routing, but it is just so random and not really working. In one battle, Rome vs North Carthago, it lasted 20 secs as the whole North Carthago army just routed. Battle over. In another battle, my very experienced troops went up against newly recruited Hoplites from North Carthago, it did not go well for me LOL. In the battle I lost a total of 89 men and all my lines broke. The battle lasted a good 9 mins, but against the Hoplites and with me flanking, they took 8 casualties. I have seen this a couple times where Hoplites take 0 casualties. Not sure if that is just a bug or they are buffed or something. Just thought I share.

So, I know you have been having a debate as far as how many casualties army's sustained in battle, and all I can say is both sides are correct. I was a classical history major and my later studies took me specifically into the Roman history. Selea, you are correct in the fact that in many battles there were very few casualties, however, by the time of the Marius' Reforms, this simply was not the case. The battles Rome fought from this time period became extremely bloody for many reasons (Better weapons, tactics, and the evolving nature of warfare). The Marius' Reforms came about just for this reason, as Rome lost a huge battle against the "Barbarians" with 70% casualties. Now, many deaths came about when units would break and turn their back, but the fact remains they took serious losses. Were there battles that sustained very few casualties? Sure, sometime one army started a battle and saw it was crap, and just simply bugged out.

Now, I have 0 modding experience and don't know how you guys do this stuff, but this seems like a huge task on making units route realistically, based on fear of the opponent. From what I have seen it just is not working correctly and having the opposite affect or realism. One of my campaign battle I faced level one spearman while suffering 1-2% casualties. All my men just gave up.I do let's play, and for the first time I had to stop one of my videos and redo a save. I am all about reducing the kill rate, I hate killing 4000 men in 6 min and I totally support where you are going with this, but as you can see there needs to be some tweaks.

Selea, all I have to say is I really applaud what you do and I am just blown away with what you have done so far. Simply amazing. So, please don't take this post as a negative I just want to give you as much info as I can so you can make the best mod out there. Like I said before, I do let's play videos and brag about your mod and how amazing it is. I have been with you since day one of AGA, and have no plans on leaving. If you want, I can send you videos of the battle bugs, as I record all my gameplay. Anything to help. Thanks for all the hard work!

Oh, please excuse grammar on this post, I am typing on my phone. LOL