[Feedback] Suggestions, Critiques & Requests

[Black9]

This unit of slingers wasted its entire ammunition supply against one of my units, and scored a grand total of 3 kills. While I do not expect slingers to wipe such a defensive unit from the front, the problem was that they were not actually hitting my hoplites. The vast majority of the shots seemed to fly roughly 20 "man widths" back (35 feet or so IRL, its hard to measure in game), with only like 10% of shots actually going low enough to hit my unit. I can understand sling bullets bouncing relatively harmlessly off the front of units with shields and devastate units with little to no armor (or the sides of units with shields but no body armor), but to have them balanced by making them miss so much makes them pretty much worthless.

I've noticed this too. Slingers are a waste of money. I've been noticed during sieges with 4 groups of slingers on the walls and focusing on one ladder-pushing unit, MAYBE 1 guy will die. They don't kill anything. I've taken a liking to archers lately. I don't like how little ammunition the peltasts have, and slingers can't kill anything, so archers it is.

[jamiedp88]

I've noticed this too. Slingers are a waste of money. I've been noticed during sieges with 4 groups of slingers on the walls and focusing on one ladder-pushing unit, MAYBE 1 guy will die. They don't kill anything. I've taken a liking to archers lately. I don't like how little ammunition the peltasts have, and slingers can't kill anything, so archers it is.

Believe it or not but ladders can actually ricochet missiles. The slingers I find suck in cities somethign to do with the buildings maybe.... in open battles I have used them to take out light cavalry etc

[Selea]

I've noticed this too. Slingers are a waste of money. I've been noticed during sieges with 4 groups of slingers on the walls and focusing on one ladder-pushing unit, MAYBE 1 guy will die. They don't kill anything. I've taken a liking to archers lately. I don't like how little ammunition the peltasts have, and slingers can't kill anything, so archers it is.

Slingers are deadly close range. From afar they are too little accurate to do good damage.

[chadwicknight]

I am playing the best campaign in 300 hours of gaming. Very nice work! I especially love the devastating effect of a well-positioned charge. You did an amazing job with formations and how they react to conditions.
My thanks and congratulations!

[Yerevan]

Hello. Right now, playing as Rome, all the AI barbarian stack"s composition are kind of repetitive with some of them being filled with slingers and basic spearmen/swordmen. I guess it's normal as this is just the beginning but I was wondering : how is the AI recruitment later in the campaign ? Do they field elite troops and balanced compositions of cav/heavy inf/skirmish ?

[Selea]

Hello. Right now, playing as Rome, all the AI barbarian stack"s composition are kind of repetitive with some of them being filled with slingers and basic spearmen/swordmen. I guess it's normal as this is just the beginning but I was wondering : how is the AI recruitment later in the campaign ? Do they field elite troops and balanced compositions of cav/heavy inf/skirmish ?

Barbarians had never an huge variation in troops, historically.

If you search variation Barbarians are surely not the best choice; much better are Rome or Hellenic factions.

We will add some units to Barbarians but all in all they in reality didn't have much variation in unit types.

[Centurio Marcus]

Have you got any plans for navies and naval combat?

[Gülredy]

I would have a suggestion about Massalia.
As your mod is based on real facts, I think Massalia should be more realistic.
Specially in the diplomacy, because right now, everyone hates you, and you can't make any allies or trade agreement.
As far as I know, they were in good relations with Rome (until they "subjugated" them) and they were the biggest trading city in the region.
Their trading goods could be even founded on the Britannic lands.

Also there's a unit pack which looks very great and based on historical background.
Link
I am not sure if you are using these units and skins or not, but if not, and it is possible, can you use it in your mod and fix some diplomatic relations with the other factions?
So not everyone hates you when you start the game, and there's a chance to do a non agression pact, or a trade agreement.


Furthermore I don't know if it is possible, but rome need some campaign map "ugrade" too.
By upgrade I mean that rome creates troops but never uses them to attack. Barely seen a few times, that rome conquered a province, and usually it gets overwhelmed by the Barbarians or some minor faction.
So what I mean its too weak on campaign map, and it is really hard to get in any diplomatic state with it because the faction "motivatons" (you know the relieable or warlike etc stats), because its always on the agressive state but barely does anything.

[vpapako]

Some suggestions and questions on the grounds of making the campaign game more challenging / interesting. For me the campaign game does not seem challenging at all, except in enemy aggression. How to remedy that?

Spreading culture and settlement conversion. My point is this: Neither the player nor the AI have much motivation to subjugate instead of conquering. That is a) because it is really easy to spread your own culture in a conquered settlement and it happens unrealistically fast and b) because it is easy to both raise happiness and spread your culture by building temples.

My suggestion: a) Change the system for cultural conversion. Your own culture should take over very slowly and only if the settlement is really happy. Also temples should have no conversion effect but positive happiness effects in settlements where your culture is dominant and happiness penalties in the ones where another culture is dominant.
A gallic village should not be happy to see their ancestral places of worship replaced by a temple to Jupiter for example.

Thus the player should keep the province in good order by using entertainment buildings and soldiers until after a certain amount of time when happiness will result in cultural conversion which will enable the player to build his own religious buildings to enjoy more positive effects etc.

b) Changing a settlement from a gallic city to a roman Colony should be an option provided the roman culture is dominant (same for all cultures). The reasoning is that a conquered settlement once converted can enjoy the benefits of public order buffs and garrisons but until that happens the player should be required to maintain forces in the settlement for all purposes.

c) The same mechanic described in point a) should apply to client states and satrapies. That is, if they are happy (+100) the overlords culture should penetrate and slowly convert. And in those cases, without any public order penalties.

d) (If possible) the tribal confederation mechanic should be used by factions who do not form confederations to annex client states and satrapies. If however those are not of the same culture they will carry public order penalties.

e) Bigger penalties for different cultures. This is to simulate the need to maintain forces in a conquered region to suppress rebellions, which should be more common IMO. Also the "sack settlement" option when conquering a region should offer some important bonus in either public order or cultural conversion in exchange for population decrease and economic penalties.

[Cope]

Hey everyone, just thought I'd chime in here with my opinion on the mod having played it substantially.

First of all, let me congratulate Selea and the many others involved with this project because it has revolutionized my single player experience and made Rome II much better overall. Secondly, I would like to thank Selea for altering the fire rate of missile units to nerf their effectiveness in battle. Prior to his recent update they were overpowered, but now they are much better and feel much more like supporting units than they did previously.

With that said, I would like to highlight some areas of the mod which I think could be improved upon, starting with the way routing works. Personally I very much like the way that units will rout having lost a relatively low percentage of soldiers since this is historically accurate and works well overall because the extended combat times more than offsets the fact that units will break whilst still having most of their men alive.

However what is really bugging me at the moment is the way that units will stop routing almost routinely. It seems as though battle are divided into two innings where you are forced to defeat the AI twice; once when everyone is fresh, and then again once the AI have run away but stopped routing. The problem is that time and time again I find myself chasing isolated AI units scattered all over the map which have broken but returned which breaks the immersion of a grand battle. Of course units in total war games have always had the ability to come back from routing - and so they should - but for some reason the mechanic just feels really over exaggerated in the mod at the moment. This problem is coupled with the ongoing issue of being unable to run down fleeing units correctly.

Essentially, for me, these problems are contributing to the lack of 'decisive' battles both in terms of the actual battle itself and as part of the campaign. Often you can win a battle well (after having routed everyone twice) but find that as far as the campaign is concerned you've actually made very little headway. This is because you were unable to deal enough damage to the opponent during the end phase of the battle where all of its troops were shattered. I'm not exactly sure what's causing the problem, though I can only assume it's to do with the way that the stats have been altered to make battles longer. In an ideal world, it would be possible to alter the stats of routing units only so that they become much easier to run down with cavalry and light infantry.

I'm not asking for a Medieval II style slaughter fest at the end of battles, though I have to say I would much prefer to have that than how it's working at the moment. Currently I'm having to beat armies twice in the real time battles to get them to rout in the first place, and then I'm having to attack that same army again on the campaign map because I was unable to run down enough of the AI's units.

Does anybody else agree with this opinion?

PS: On a side note the Thracian units with the sickle weapon (sorry can't remember their actual name off the top of my head) have some weird issue where they can run way way faster than they should be able to.

[Guerrillero Heroico]

Hello twcenter and specially DeI fans!
I just wanna say that this mod is very awesome, the campaign is really exciting now, can't wait for the historical rosters! (can we have a preview?)
The only thing missing, and I think is missing from all the Total war games, is the domestic policy and, expecially for Roma, the "cursus onorum". The question is: is it possible to add, maybe at the TTTmod, something that implements these lacks?

However what is really bugging me at the moment is the way that units will stop routing almost routinely. It seems as though battle are divided into two innings where you are forced to defeat the AI twice; once when everyone is fresh, and then again once the AI have run away but stopped routing. The problem is that time and time again I find myself chasing isolated AI units scattered all over the map which have broken but returned which breaks the immersion of a grand battle. Of course units in total war games have always had the ability to come back from routing - and so they should - but for some reason the mechanic just feels really over exaggerated in the mod at the moment. This problem is coupled with the ongoing issue of being unable to run down fleeing units correctly.

I don't think that the "stop routing units" it's a problem, I find it correct 'cause the first line, maybe after sustain the enemie's charge, retroced to take a breath and than come back fighting!
But I'm agree with you when you said that is too hard to kill fleeing units! It seems that cavalry just forget how to use their weapons when is time to chase routing enemies!!

however congratulation to all the Divide et Impera team!!! You're doing a very great mod!

[Cidalsleepwalker]

Hello twcenter and specially DeI fans!
I just wanna say that this mod is very awesome, the campaign is really exciting now, can't wait for the historical rosters! (can we have a preview?)
The only thing missing, and I think is missing from all the Total war games, is the domestic policy and, expecially for Roma, the "cursus onorum". The question is: is it possible to add, maybe at the TTTmod, something that implements these lacks?


I don't think that the "stop routing units" it's a problem, I find it correct 'cause the first line, maybe after sustain the enemie's charge, retroced to take a breath and than come back fighting!
But I'm agree with you when you said that is too hard to kill fleeing units! It seems that cavalry just forget how to use their weapons when is time to chase routing enemies!!

however congratulation to all the Divide et Impera team!!! You're doing a very great mod!

Cursus Honorum is already handled by the poorly implemented political system. You can promote your generals through that.

[Yerevan]

I don't have much requests on the batle side. I like most of this mod aand I"m looking forward to see what the CAI modifications will be. I think the replenishment rate could be sloxered a tad more.

Just one thing htough, I m at the beginning of a Rome campaign and my generals mostly get negative traits. I have 4 with the unhinged traits out of 8. 2 with the dangerous trait and one with the "not right". I used TTT before and from what I recall it was much more balanced.

[rjacko10]

Leving - I certainly agree with your point. I spend more time chasing down units than actually on tactics in the real battle.

When units are 'Broken' they will reform and come back. When units are 'Shattered' they won't reform. That's why its always essential to shatter units. Even then you should keep up the attack because those units you let escape will be back on the campaign map. And due to 'pop-up' generals and auto recruitment your victory would be all for nothing within a couple of turns.

With this mod I find units are easy to break, but hard to shatter. I end up spending a lot of time trying thin down enemy numbers which are running away. And tbh, this isn't fun. This mod still needs a lot of work.

[Brcn]

With this mod I find units are easy to break, but hard to shatter. I end up spending a lot of time trying thin down enemy numbers which are running away. And tbh, this isn't fun. This mod still needs a lot of work.

The 'issues' you are pointing are widely discussed on the following links.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...r)-Main-Thread
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...attles-are-not

Skim through, and you will find your answers. Routing situation is a choice that is made by the modder and the fans, routing units being hard to kill is an issue regarding the engine, impossible to fix.

[Selea]

When units are 'Broken' they will reform and come back. When units are 'Shattered' they won't reform. That's why its always essential to shatter units.

This is completely wrong. A broken unit is an unit that is actively routing, a shattered unit is an unit that is on the point of wavering but it has not yet done so. So there's still to pass from "Wavering" and "Broken" before routing.

Reforming has nothing to do with the status of an unit but it depends on how many casualties in total the unit did withstand and how the battle is going for the army in general.

[Anonter]

I still find that there definitely needs to be more of a difference between principes and hastati! Rank 1 hastati is rank 0 principes, with the base cost and then the upkeep it's not worth recruiting them at all.

[Selea]

I still find that there definitely needs to be more of a difference between principes and hastati! Rank 1 hastati is rank 0 principes, with the base cost and then the upkeep it's not worth recruiting them at all.

+2 to attack and defense in DeI makes a lot of difference and to have +1 to experience takes much more than vanilla.

So, yes, it is worth to get them.

[Anonter]

+2 to attack and defense in DeI makes a lot of difference and to have +1 to experience takes much more than vanilla.

So, yes, it is worth to get them.

I did not know that, thanks for the info.

Also I have noticed from a few other historical mods that the romans start with camillian units, just curious as to why you stuck with polybian for the start? I'm not too clued up on the time ranges the camillian army was used though. But any info you could supply with would be nice!

Thanks!

[wrcromartie]

RE: Shattered: Respectfully, I'm going to agree with rjacko10. A shattered unit is a unit that has broken & can no longer recover. When the little unit flag goes away & there is no hope for the unit, the engine reports them as "Shattered". @Selea, I think you're thinking of "Shaken".

Steady -> Shaken -> Wavering -> Broken -> Shattered

Some feedback: I think Roman legions should have a higher benefit from veterancy than other units. Is this possible? Is it possible to make legions gain greater bonuses from veterancy to fatigue, melee defense, and morale relative to other units?

In general, professional / disciplined units should gain more bonuses from veterancy than levees. I would say Romans should get the highest benefit, followed by Phalangites and hoplites, and then other elite units. IMO, elite barbarian units should get higher bonuses to attack, vs higher bonuses to fatigue and defense for Roman/Greeks.

Basically what I'm saying is that the difference between green, untrained legions, and veteran legions should be HUGE. Caesar really proved this in the civil war against Pompey, where his veteran legions were able to beat Pompey's inexperienced legions despite a huge numerical disadvantage. Of course, Caesar was a great commander, but without his staunch legions to carry out his commands, there's no way he could've won.

Secondly, I'm saying that while a green army of Romans is going to have a tough time against the barbarians, if the Romans can hold on and grind their green legion into veterans, the tables will turn.