[Feedback] Suggestions, Critiques & Requests

[rjacko10]

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.

I made a long post (posted twice, by accident) on page 6 (I think). This detailed an easy way to get armies out of settlements and into the fields where they belong. This would reduce your hated settlement battles.

Basically make armies give increasingly negative public order the longer they are present.

However I only coaxed 1 response which was negative. Such a shame, I thought this idea had such great potential.

[alfer0001]

hi again ) guys, have you thought about decreasing morale of AI units in situations, when they lost first battle, run away, and you immediately attack them again? i`ve read in this thread the answer of some member of DeI team about inability to make some bonuses for chasing troops... so maybe you could solve this problem that way? becouse often happens situation, when army, that was just crushed - having no problems with it...their losses not very big, becouse very hard to chase them even with 3-4 units of cavalry... so, i think, if you pretend on historical accuracy, you should do smth with it...

[Go0lden_Archer]

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?

Tho the idea of reducing small settlement battles is nice... I don't really like that, as those settlement battles give some tactical advantage when you defend them, and with garrison vs army in open field... Well, every faction would just start loosing settlements faster cuz fighting with ~5 units in settlements give bonuses instead of open field battle.

What l'd love to see is some of minor settlements getting walls, at least after AI learn how to use siege equipement.

BTW, you can easily take settlement under siege, and when time runs out it'll be yours without any battle or with open battle, I do it quite often myself.

[Cope]

Thanks for the feedback guys however I feel like I should add something else which I may not have touched on in my first post;

I think that one of my major gripes is the fact that the AI will sit on its minor settlements with full stacks when in reality it would come out and fight. Of course people have used walled cities as havens when they are under attack, but usually in circumstances where they have no choice. I honestly cannot think of any historical situation where the sort of minor settlement battles that we see in Rome II Total War took place. If you have an army - not just a garrison - there is no advantage whatsoever in sitting it in an undefended town whilst the enemy ravages your territory. Indeed, I can't even think of circumstances where an entire army would have sat in a walled settlement willingly unless it felt that it had little option but to do so. Can you guys really imagine a situation where an army would have sat in a town centre as it does in Rome II? Aside from anything else it would have made it incredibly easy to simply surround from all sides and destroy.

From a game play perspective I understand that garrisons should not be coming out to fight, but if the AI has a full stack it should at least be attempting to deal with the enemy that is encroaching on its territory. As I said previously because of the importance of capturing the settlements, it just means that the vast majority of meaningful battles that take place are over these crappy little towns which just feel pretty fail. When we think back to the decisive encounters of the ancient era, almost all were full blown sieges of walled cities or open field battles. These minor settlements are neither sieges nor are they open battles. They are somewhere in the middle and as I also said I feel that they play to all over Total War's weaknesses.

At the very least there should be some method drawing the AI stacks out into open battle.

EDIT: As to the point about sieging to make the AI come out, it is a lot easier said than done where the coastal settlements are concerned. You need to have a navy to besiege it. Also, it does not usually give you an advantage on the campaign map, in fact the faster you can get things done the better. Therefore it makes more sense usually to just take the settlement as soon as you can.

[loukylouk]

Thanks for the feedback guys however I feel like I should add something else which I may not have touched on in my first post;

I think that one of my major gripes is the fact that the AI will sit on its minor settlements with full stacks when in reality it would come out and fight. Of course people have used walled cities as havens when they are under attack, but usually in circumstances where they have no choice. I honestly cannot think of any historical situation where the sort of minor settlement battles that we see in Rome II Total War took place. If you have an army - not just a garrison - there is no advantage whatsoever in sitting it in an undefended town whilst the enemy ravages your territory. Indeed, I can't even think of circumstances where an entire army would have sat in a walled settlement willingly unless it felt that it had little option but to do so. Can you guys really imagine a situation where an army would have sat in a town centre as it does in Rome II? Aside from anything else it would have made it incredibly easy to simply surround from all sides and destroy.

From a game play perspective I understand that garrisons should not be coming out to fight, but if the AI has a full stack it should at least be attempting to deal with the enemy that is encroaching on its territory. As I said previously because of the importance of capturing the settlements, it just means that the vast majority of meaningful battles that take place are over these crappy little towns which just feel pretty fail. When we think back to the decisive encounters of the ancient era, almost all were full blown sieges of walled cities or open field battles. These minor settlements are neither sieges nor are they open battles. They are somewhere in the middle and as I also said I feel that they play to all over Total War's weaknesses.

At the very least there should be some method drawing the AI stacks out into open battle.

EDIT: As to the point about sieging to make the AI come out, it is a lot easier said than done where the coastal settlements are concerned. You need to have a navy to besiege it. Also, it does not usually give you an advantage on the campaign map, in fact the faster you can get things done the better. Therefore it makes more sense usually to just take the settlement as soon as you can.

I have always noticed that the CAI will not attack me unless it has the absolute advantage. I'm talking three stacks lined up to fight my one. I rarely get attacked if its one on one. I wonder if there is a way to make the CAI more ballsy.

[rjacko10]

I think that one of my major gripes is the fact that the AI will sit on its minor settlements with full stacks when in reality it would come out and fight. Of course people have used walled cities as havens when they are under attack, but usually in circumstances where they have no choice. I honestly cannot think of any historical situation where the sort of minor settlement battles that we see in Rome II Total War took place. If you have an army - not just a garrison - there is no advantage whatsoever in sitting it in an undefended town whilst the enemy ravages your territory. Indeed, I can't even think of circumstances where an entire army would have sat in a walled settlement willingly unless it felt that it had little option but to do so. Can you guys really imagine a situation where an army would have sat in a town centre as it does in Rome II? Aside from anything else it would have made it incredibly easy to simply surround from all sides and destroy.

OMG! We agree completely.. Go and read my post on page 6.. you can't miss it, I posted twice because of my internet connection cut out.

[tli004]

Quick question, has the attrition been edited for siege battles? Because the AI are not losing any men while I am siegeing their settlements and my own army seem to be losing around 5% every turn.

[Dresden]

Quick question, has the attrition been edited for siege battles? Because the AI are not losing any men while I am siegeing their settlements and my own army seem to be losing around 5% every turn.

No, I don't believe we have edited attrition at all. Are you using any other mods?

[KAM 2150]

Quick question, has the attrition been edited for siege battles? Because the AI are not losing any men while I am siegeing their settlements and my own army seem to be losing around 5% every turn.

Does the city have access to port? If yes, then you have the answer why they are not losing any people.

[rjacko10]

Quick question, has the attrition been edited for siege battles? Because the AI are not losing any men while I am siegeing their settlements and my own army seem to be losing around 5% every turn.

If the settlement has a port they can still trade via sea. You need to blockade the port too.

[Cope]

Sorry to keep on beating a dead horse but pila is still way way way way way OP. It really needs to be toned down loads. It's way to good.

[GnaReffotsirk]

Suggestion on Imperium Level, province income balance:

That the player should barely be able to support max army per imperium given the number of armies he can field. Say 5 land armies and 3 navies. When using the best units, only one stack should be possible, while the others will be composed of auxillia or minor units. And there's just say 400-600 extra gold per turn.

This way the player will not have extra income.

Also, as per balance, when the player reaches a certain imperium, income would be like this:

New Imperium Income = Old Imperium Income + 20%

Meaning, that as the player reaches this imperium level, he will only get +20% from the new provinces, even if he takes all the provinces and puts him in a "one region less for the next imperium level" status.

[GnaReffotsirk]

Also, having higher tier military production buildings, auxillia/barracks add to recruitment slots. Or training grounds add to recruitment slots.

[Yarkis de Bodemloze]

Very nice mod! First time that I somewhat enjoyed playing the game since release. Here are some suggestions:

(1) Economy: I think money should be tighter. As it is now it's a non-issue after you havea few provinces and get some trade going. These suggestion that can easily be implemented by manipulating global variables:
- Increase unit upkeep by 20%
- Reduce trade income by at least 20%
- Incease building costs by 50%
- Incease corruption

(2) Double the movement range for agents. They are way to slow.

(3) yukishiro1 has suggested some very good changes to how recuitment slots could work. See his proposed changes HERE.

[Yerevan]

(2) Double the movement range for agents. They are way to slow.
.

As I think that agents are way op and too efficient in killing generals or blocking building construction for ever, this idea interests me a lot. With a much bigger range and less killing and sabotage powers agents would stilll be a precious intelligence source (and exploration). Plus they would still activate various bonus when embeded. And dignitary could activate diplomatic bonus when sent next to an AI faction's general. At the moment dignitaries are the less usefull agents IMO.

[Orphydian]

This mod is total splendour and a feats of visuals. Too bad you guys have chosen such a generic and predictable name. Pls think about a better name. I might have some proposals too.

[Yarkis de Bodemloze]

You have new buildings in your mod, but they are not defined in the CAI building tables, so the CAi may actually not use them, or may be unable to upgrade from them.

[Dresden]

You have new buildings in your mod, but they are not defined in the CAI building tables, so the CAi may actually not use them, or may be unable to upgrade from them.

Yeah, we will be adding the CAI building table for the new resource buildings in the next update.

I know it's still too early to say yes or no, but are you guys at least considering trying to implement the seasons feature from Caesar in Gaul (after it comes out of course) if it's not too hardcoded? since this mod uses 4tpy after all

I am almost positive it will not be something that can be transferred to the main game. It would require 3 new entirely different campaign maps. If it is somehow something we can use, then we definitely will.

[Le_Swede]

Nvm

[vlakc]

I know it's still too early to say yes or no, but are you guys at least considering trying to implement the seasons feature from Caesar in Gaul (after it comes out of course) if it's not too hardcoded? since this mod uses 4tpy after all