[Feedback] Suggestions, Critiques & Requests

[Kambe]

For Praetorians, we have already done it - will be there in next version.

As for Elephants Generals, the cap is 30.

Great

[Dresden]

No, I don't think you can specify faction leader only.

[Muffin Top]

is it possible to add sound effects to the game? when the units cheer at the end of the speech, they sound like 7 drunk guys cheering for their football team in the basement so what Im asking is it possible to mod in some sort of epic cheer like the ones we had in the good ole rtw
I know my suggestion is probably the last in the list and there are, without a doubt, far more important issues but it would be epic

[Gaius Livius]

Downloaded the mod, started as Carthage and holy smokes I am back in TW heaven.....

But here is my suggestion. Any chance for a 2ypt campaign? 4ypt is the only thing I am not so happy with. That's all.

[salot_sar]

Nice Mod!

Say will AGA be updated again or is DeI the top priority now?

Cheers mate!

[Dresden]

@Gaius Livius That is easily changeable. It is one value in the startpos.esf file. Just open up the pack using PFM (can find that in Mod Workshop tools thread), go to campaigns - main_rome - startpos.esf. Expand out the Campaign Model - Campaign Calendar.
First value is a 4, change it to 2.

Or, get EditSF and open your save. Same thing, change the value to a 2.

[Gaius Livius]

@Gaius Livius That is easily changeable. It is one value in the startpos.esf file. Just open up the pack using PFM (can find that in Mod Workshop tools thread), go to campaigns - main_rome - startpos.esf. Expand out the Campaign Model - Campaign Calendar.
First value is a 4, change it to 2.

Or, get EditSF and open your save. Same thing, change the value to a 2.

Thank you. Done and dusted and now I am a happy bunny.

[michaelpap]

is it possible to add some romanised units in pontus roster ?? i understand several kingdoms in asia such as seleukids etc used such roman way trained units.
mithridates used such units.

[KAM 2150]

Their formation gives them bonus, they don't need separate one. Just do custom battle and see how even the best cavalry units die just by touching the phalanx.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Their formation gives them bonus, they don't need separate one. Just do custom battle and see how even the best cavalry units die just by touching the phalanx.

Okay that actually makes much more sense then.

[rjacko10]

Their formation gives them bonus, they don't need separate one. Just do custom battle and see how even the best cavalry units die just by touching the phalanx.

Surely that "0 bonus vs cavalry" statistic should be removed from the Pike information card then? It is quite confusing and unnecessary...!

[tli004]

Hey DeI team, I was researching a bit into Tarantine Calvary because I noticed that changes were made from the Vanilla version:

Originally the cavalry of the army of the Greek city of Tarantas (Tarentum) in Magna Graecia, it was renowned for its peculiar battle tactics. It consisted the only cavalry of the Graeco-Roman world to employ pure, advanced skirmishing tactics. It was unarmored and normally equipped with shield and javelins, which it hurled to the enemy, evading any attempt to engage in close combat. In the Hellenistic era, we have numerous references to Tarantine units, even in the armies of the eastern Macedonian empires, but unfortunately no definite account of their equipment or their tactical use. From the Greek tactical manuals we learn that Tarantines is the collective name of the lightly armored cavalry, which equipped with javelins and lance, first skirmishes against the enemy and then charges. If this cavalry attempts no charge remaining at distance, then it is called Tarantines proper. From these texts we can safely deduce that during the Hellenistic times, the term "Tarantines" bore no geographical significance anymore.^[24][25] It was purely used as a tactical term.

Admittedly this was taken from wikipedia but supposedly cited from Ars Tactica of Arrian, a Roman historian. Anyways was wondering whether this would be possible, to equip them with a lance for charges instead of the current sword. Also, I was wondering whether camel and elephant units had a (hard-coded?) bonus against horse calvary units, as the camel calvary have no scare horse ability currently and seem to be pretty pointless to recruit without that bonus effect. Thank you team, keep up the good work.

[alfer0001]

and a one more...may be you should fix a problem of expirience? `cos when my legioners killing 200 people, expirience increasing on 5 %, but when they lost 20 of 160 - it`s decreasing for 15 % and i loosing one level...on my opinion, there is no balance here... becouse you can`t kill much people without losses, i don`t how to achive some expirience...

[GnaReffotsirk]

Guys, I think it would be nice for tired units to have reduced attacks to say 35%.

[Cope]

Can I ask here if anyone actually likes to play minor settlement battles? The reason I'm interested is because I hate them with a passion and would much prefer to just fight an open land battle instead. I was wondering what the general consensus about them is, whether people think they are a good addition to the game or not. If the answer is no, then like me you will probably want them out of the game, or at least limited.

Allow me to list a few obvious problems with these sort of battles:

- Just like in walled city battles the AI is incapable of acting reasonably. It will often allow the player to shoot it to death with missile units and or ballistae and will run back and forth doing nothing. This usually makes it VERY easy to win.
- The tactical aspect of the game sort of goes out of the window because the AI will just blob all its units in the centre of the town like an idiot
- As we all know unit pathfinding is bad enough, but in these settlement battles it becomes worse as both the player and the AI try to navigate through the choke points.
- The amount of minor settlement battles in the game is much greater than it should be which is a problem because it feels like every fight is for a crappy looking village.
- As to the point above, the settlements themselves are not epic at all. Their appearance makes me wonder what I'm fighting for. This is particularly true when massive ancient cities such as Jerusalem/Syracuse are represented by a 5 house hamlet in the middle of nowhere.
- It gets really boring really quickly playing battles on the same settlements over and over and over again. Despite the fact that CA did make a fair number of different designs, it is nowhere near enough to keep my interested.
- For me personally they cause occasional technical difficulties, and I'm sure that most people have noticed the FPS drops that happen in ALL settlement battles, particularly where the settlement is barbarian.
- Ultimately minor settlement battles play to ALL of Total War's weaknesses. This game was made with open land battles in mind and that is where the game mechanics work best.

With all this in mind would anyone actually miss minor settlement battles if they were gone? I understand they have a place in the game, but at the moment they are way to emphasized and add nothing to the flavour of the game in my opinion. I know that there have been mods that have offered users the chance to remove them from the game, but this does not include coastal minor settlement battles which is very annoying since it seems like 50% of the settlements are coastal settlements.

In terms of game play and realism I would really like to see these sort of battles reduced, and I was wondering if you people agree. If you do, do you think it would be reasonable to request for this mod that minor settlement battles are removed. After all, the whole idea of armies just sitting on a lame little village defending a magical flag seems stupid to me. I know in the real world they would have come out and given battle.

Thoughts?

[alfer0001]

Can I ask here if anyone actually likes to play minor settlement battles? The reason I'm interested is because I hate them with a passion and would much prefer to just fight an open land battle instead. I was wondering what the general consensus about them is, whether people think they are a good addition to the game or not. If the answer is no, then like me you will probably want them out of the game, or at least limited.

Allow me to list a few obvious problems with these sort of battles:

- Just like in walled city battles the AI is incapable of acting reasonably. It will often allow the player to shoot it to death with missile units and or ballistae and will run back and forth doing nothing. This usually makes it VERY easy to win.
- The tactical aspect of the game sort of goes out of the window because the AI will just blob all its units in the centre of the town like an idiot
- As we all know unit pathfinding is bad enough, but in these settlement battles it becomes worse as both the player and the AI try to navigate through the choke points.
- The amount of minor settlement battles in the game is much greater than it should be which is a problem because it feels like every fight is for a crappy looking village.
- As to the point above, the settlements themselves are not epic at all. Their appearance makes me wonder what I'm fighting for. This is particularly true when massive ancient cities such as Jerusalem/Syracuse are represented by a 5 house hamlet in the middle of nowhere.
- It gets really boring really quickly playing battles on the same settlements over and over and over again. Despite the fact that CA did make a fair number of different designs, it is nowhere near enough to keep my interested.
- For me personally they cause occasional technical difficulties, and I'm sure that most people have noticed the FPS drops that happen in ALL settlement battles, particularly where the settlement is barbarian.
- Ultimately minor settlement battles play to ALL of Total War's weaknesses. This game was made with open land battles in mind and that is where the game mechanics work best.

With all this in mind would anyone actually miss minor settlement battles if they were gone? I understand they have a place in the game, but at the moment they are way to emphasized and add nothing to the flavour of the game in my opinion. I know that there have been mods that have offered users the chance to remove them from the game, but this does not include coastal minor settlement battles which is very annoying since it seems like 50% of the settlements are coastal settlements.

In terms of game play and realism I would really like to see these sort of battles reduced, and I was wondering if you people agree. If you do, do you think it would be reasonable to request for this mod that minor settlement battles are removed. After all, the whole idea of armies just sitting on a lame little village defending a magical flag seems stupid to me. I know in the real world they would have come out and given battle.

Thoughts?

as for me, i can`t agree or deny you suggestions complitely... you are right about lower level of difficulty, but: 1. i like those battles `cos their speed is not so intensive. So i can have a close look at fighting troops, which is impossible in crazy rate of the "field battle" 2. i`d rather cancel the battles with walls `cos defense are REALLY boring in all TW games...

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Can I ask here if anyone actually likes to play minor settlement battles? The reason I'm interested is because I hate them with a passion and would much prefer to just fight an open land battle instead. I was wondering what the general consensus about them is, whether people think they are a good addition to the game or not. If the answer is no, then like me you will probably want them out of the game, or at least limited.

Allow me to list a few obvious problems with these sort of battles:

- Just like in walled city battles the AI is incapable of acting reasonably. It will often allow the player to shoot it to death with missile units and or ballistae and will run back and forth doing nothing. This usually makes it VERY easy to win.
- The tactical aspect of the game sort of goes out of the window because the AI will just blob all its units in the centre of the town like an idiot
- As we all know unit pathfinding is bad enough, but in these settlement battles it becomes worse as both the player and the AI try to navigate through the choke points.
- The amount of minor settlement battles in the game is much greater than it should be which is a problem because it feels like every fight is for a crappy looking village.
- As to the point above, the settlements themselves are not epic at all. Their appearance makes me wonder what I'm fighting for. This is particularly true when massive ancient cities such as Jerusalem/Syracuse are represented by a 5 house hamlet in the middle of nowhere.
- It gets really boring really quickly playing battles on the same settlements over and over and over again. Despite the fact that CA did make a fair number of different designs, it is nowhere near enough to keep my interested.
- For me personally they cause occasional technical difficulties, and I'm sure that most people have noticed the FPS drops that happen in ALL settlement battles, particularly where the settlement is barbarian.
- Ultimately minor settlement battles play to ALL of Total War's weaknesses. This game was made with open land battles in mind and that is where the game mechanics work best.

With all this in mind would anyone actually miss minor settlement battles if they were gone? I understand they have a place in the game, but at the moment they are way to emphasized and add nothing to the flavour of the game in my opinion. I know that there have been mods that have offered users the chance to remove them from the game, but this does not include coastal minor settlement battles which is very annoying since it seems like 50% of the settlements are coastal settlements.

In terms of game play and realism I would really like to see these sort of battles reduced, and I was wondering if you people agree. If you do, do you think it would be reasonable to request for this mod that minor settlement battles are removed. After all, the whole idea of armies just sitting on a lame little village defending a magical flag seems stupid to me. I know in the real world they would have come out and given battle.

Thoughts?

I actually like minor settlement battles.
I disagree, the AI for me has been putting up layered defenses at each of the choke point approaches in these types of battles, putting skirmishing units infront of a melee line with a second skirmisher group behind the melee line. I also think that the amount of minor settlements on the map is very indicative of how many of these places were actually villages at the time, not large sprawling cities. While certainly not epic, I have had some extremely good battles in minor settlements, especially using choke points and a garrison army to defeat a much larger attacking army. I have noticed absolutely no fps drops in minor city battles no matter where they take place. I can't comment for everyone else, but that's not something I've heard of before. As for what you're fighting for, obviously you're fighting for that region, which is generally controlled or administered by a large regional town or the like. Maybe it is boring, but that's how and why wars were fought historically. So yes, I would really miss minor settlement battles as the game would lack already much needed variety, and it would then be completely ahistorical. In terms of realism it's fine how it is, lessening them would actually be less historically accurate. The flag system really should just be removed, allowing the AI to focus completely on the player's army. I already know they can be removed, and it seems to make the AI perform better. In the real world, a force would use whatever advantages they had at hand, and being in a settlement offers much more advantage to the defender than going to meet the army on an open field. What army would willingly throw away a large advantage "just because"? I apologize for the formatting, but for some reason I'm unable to use enter or even tab to space my lines. This is the only website where I've had the issue.

[Soontir]

The flag system really should just be removed, allowing the AI to focus completely on the player's army.

+1 Saw many times, as AI nicely defended city plaza, blocking aproach from every side with heavy infantry ...but that wasn't one with the flag, that was left completly undefended. Ofc they didn't moved while i was capturing victory point and autorouted soon after.
Only flags that controlls building ownership in walled settlements are required IMO.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

+1 Saw many times, as AI nicely defended city plaza, blocking aproach from every side with heavy infantry ...but that wasn't one with the flag, that was left completly undefended. Ofc they didn't moved while i was capturing victory point and autorouted soon after.
Only flags that controlls building ownership in walled settlements are required IMO.

Flags worked fine in the first Rome because it was only used as a rallying point for broken units and the AI would only go to defend it once the walls were breached. That was a lot better method for city fighting. Defend the walls, if they fall, everyone rallys to the center to make a last stand.

[Cope]

Ok just with reference to my post above I forgot to mention a possible solution to the problem.

At the moment the going into the raiding stance can draw the AI out to fight, but it needs to do more damage I think to force the AI to fight. Seems like even if you take the AI's settlement down to 0 public order it will still refuse to fight...sigh lol.