[Feedback] Suggestions, Critiques & Requests

[Durador]

Could there be something done about the nomadic tribes, they spam archers on horses all the time it's so boring to fight the same unit stacks all the time

[Centurio Marcus]

Seems like my question was lost in time so I'll re-ask it:

Have you got any plans for navies and naval combat? As of right now you haven't touched them yet, am I correct?

[Selea]

Seems like my question was lost in time so I'll re-ask it:

Have you got any plans for navies and naval combat? As of right now you haven't touched them yet, am I correct?

Yes, they will be done in the future.

First we finish all the land aspect to the best, then we will also implement realistic and historical naval warfare.

[Ichigorukia]

After a few more releases do you guy think that you could add additional campaigns for us to play along since the vanilla one?

[wrcromartie]

A comment regarding lowering army limits:

One of the best things about the TTT integration is that I am able to use general only stacks as governors. I really like this, as it allows a sort-of simulation of the cost/benefit of having great leaders in your cities vs having them in the field.

[Sir_Pee_Alot]

Hi guys are there any plans too make more building options like this http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-v-1-0-release

[rjacko10]

Hi guys are there any plans too make more building options like this http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-v-1-0-release

+1

I hope the DeI authors can work with this guy to produce a balanced custom version.

[Soontir]

I accidently found that civil war trigers are set for 6 (civil war checkout activates), 7 (higher chance of occuring) , 8 (civil war whatever player do) . So there're 9 fame levels starting form 0? One more then vanilla? Anyway, would it be possible to set third triger at higher number then max fame lvl? If that would work, then player might finaly be able to prevent it if he cares about internal politic. Also lowest at 6 seems too high. I know that it's basicly broken and no one likes it, but earlier it happens, it's easier to beat and with TTT it's also easier to maintain proper power balance. Fourth fame level as lowest looks more reasonable to me.

[Dresden]

I accidently found that civil war trigers are set for 6 (civil war checkout activates), 7 (higher chance of occuring) , 8 (civil war whatever player do) . So there're 9 fame levels starting form 0? One more then vanilla? Anyway, would it be possible to set third triger at higher number then max fame lvl? If that would work, then player might finaly be able to prevent it if he cares about internal politic. Also lowest at 6 seems too high. I know that it's basicly broken and no one likes it, but earlier it happens, it's easier to beat and with TTT it's also easier to maintain proper power balance. Fourth fame level as lowest looks more reasonable to me.

In DeI, we have added an extra imperium level in order to limit small AI factions to 2 armies. This is an attempt to prevent minors from overwhelming majors. In vanilla, there are 7 imperium levels but in DeI there are 8. We are considering for the next update changing it so that civil wars don't automatically happen. This would make the politics system actually matter.

[Epic28]

Hi guys are there any plans too make more building options like this http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-v-1-0-release

I second this. Basically what I would love to see is more construction options for the buildings in this game and hopefully add more unique buildings and bonuses per culture or faction. One thing that I also dislike with Rome 2 is how the major factions seem to disappear from mostly all campaigns within 30 turns.

Aelexander's - A Better Empire work should be definitely implement into this overhaul mod, hopefully he will flesh out his mod with even more options soon. I would also love to see something similar to Dresden's Large Empire Hegemonia mod, it is great finally being able to see the major factions lasting through and forging decently sized empires during mid/late campaign games. Not to mention his mod definitely captures a more historical representation of the major faction empires during the start time. And I know he works with you guys routinely on this mod so fingers crossed.

Hopefully unit packs will be on the scene shortly as well.

Great work DeI team!

[Slashas]

A thought about the slowed charge for diciplined units, while it's a great idea (and probarly realistic) it creates a problem when hunting enemies or when I need to intercept a flanking enemy. Enemies will outrun my soldiers when I try to intercept of hunt them because of the slowed charge speed. It would be great if you could have both, slowed speed when 2 units charge eachother, increased speed when only one charges. I do understand that this might not be possible with the situation tough.

[rjacko10]

In Rome 2 there are too many battles fought in settlements. Battles which are: attacking army vs defending army + garrison. This happens because having a garrison gives you a very positive advantage. Also having an army stationed in town gives public order benefits, enemy deterrent benefits, unit replenishment benefits and now TTT general exp benefits. However, everyone loves a battle on the battlefield (plus I think having more would be historically accurate).

So I think we need to promote getting armies out of the settlements and into the field - where they belong!

One easy way to do this is to take the public order benefits and turn it on its head. Who says having 10,000 horny, drunk, aggressive men in your town who are bored to hell after having been stationed there for 5 years should addpublic order? Something has gone terribly wrong somewhere, because this does not make sense. Not only doesn't it make sense, but it's also making the game worse! So if you (i.e. DeI expert modders) were to make armies impart negative order on settlements, we'll suddenly have a lot more armies in the field. This will not only bring more battlefield battles, but will also introduce:

(1) a less defensive style of play - armies will no longer sit in their settlements waiting for the enemy to come to them
(2) more tactical gameplay - we'll be able to make full use of these stances we've been given
(3) more value to the garrison - without an army sitting in vulnerable settlements the garrison units will need more attention than ever

I'm sure the clever people reading this post are already one step ahead of me now. But I shall continue this chain of thought anyway.. You've freshly taken a new settlement from your sworn enemy. The local population are understandably displeased with your presence, but your conquering army acts as a policing force, deterring revolt and dealing with the most unruly. Your army imparts a public order boost. However, as time wears on, the population begins to liken/adapt to your rule and culture, and the presence of the bored, boisterous army begins to cause negative public order. The larger the army the more the negative impact. Perhaps with the exception of very small armies (for example 3/4 units max) which would act more like a positive policing force and for the status of having a famous governor in town. The actual calculation of the public order penalty could potentially be tied to many different variables, for example: number of army units; length of time in settlement; proximity of enemy army; cultural % difference; conquered instability penalty; general gravitas (fame benefit); general traits.

The most astute of you may be asking:
- can these public order penalties still serve even if the army is within the red reinforcement range, otherwise every army would hang around outside the town instead?
- how would the CAI handle this overhaul?
- are these changes even possible?
- other intelligent questions...

..for which I have no idea the answer to.

Glad to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

[rjacko10]

In Rome 2 there are too many battles fought in settlements. Battles which are: attacking army vs defending army + garrison. This happens because having a garrison gives you a very positive advantage. Also having an army stationed in town gives public order benefits, enemy deterrent benefits, unit replenishment benefits and now TTT general exp benefits. However, everyone loves a battle on the battlefield (plus I think having more would be historically accurate).

So I think we need to promote getting armies out of the settlements and into the field - where they belong!

One easy way to do this is to take the public order benefits and turn it on its head. Who says having 10,000 horny, drunk, aggressive men in your town who are bored to hell after having been stationed there for 5 years should addpublic order? Something has gone terribly wrong somewhere, because this does not make sense. Not only doesn't it make sense, but it's also making the game worse! So if you (i.e. DeI expert modders) were to make armies impart negative order on settlements, we'll suddenly have a lot more armies in the field. This will not only bring more battlefield battles, but will also introduce:

(1) a less defensive style of play - armies will no longer sit in their settlements waiting for the enemy to come to them
(2) more tactical gameplay - we'll be able to make full use of these stances we've been given
(3) more value to the garrison - without an army sitting in vulnerable settlements the garrison units will need more attention than ever

I'm sure the clever people reading this post are already one step ahead of me now. But I shall continue this chain of thought anyway.. You've freshly taken a new settlement from your sworn enemy. The local population are understandably displeased with your presence, but your conquering army acts as a policing force, deterring revolt and dealing with the most unruly. Your army imparts a public order boost. However, as time wears on, the population begins to liken/adapt to your rule and culture, and the presence of the bored, boisterous army begins to cause negative public order. The larger the army the more the negative impact. Perhaps with the exception of very small armies (for example 3/4 units max) which would act more like a positive policing force and for the status of having a famous governor in town. The actual calculation of the public order penalty could potentially be tied to many different variables, for example: number of army units; length of time in settlement; proximity of enemy army; cultural % difference; conquered instability penalty; general gravitas (fame benefit); general traits.

The most astute of you may be asking:
- can these public order penalties still serve even if the army is within the red reinforcement range, otherwise every army would hang around outside the town instead?
- how would the CAI handle this overhaul?
- are these changes even possible?
- other intelligent questions...

..for which I have no idea the answer to.

Glad to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

[jamiedp88]

In Rome 2 there are too many battles fought in settlements. Battles which are: attacking army vs defending army + garrison. This happens because having a garrison gives you a very positive advantage. Also having an army stationed in town gives public order benefits, enemy deterrent benefits, unit replenishment benefits and now TTT general exp benefits. However, everyone loves a battle on the battlefield (plus I think having more would be historically accurate).

So I think we need to promote getting armies out of the settlements and into the field - where they belong!

One easy way to do this is to take the public order benefits and turn it on its head. Who says having 10,000 horny, drunk, aggressive men in your town who are bored to hell after having been stationed there for 5 years should addpublic order? Something has gone terribly wrong somewhere, because this does not make sense. Not only doesn't it make sense, but it's also making the game worse! So if you (i.e. DeI expert modders) were to make armies impart negative order on settlements, we'll suddenly have a lot more armies in the field. This will not only bring more battlefield battles, but will also introduce:

(1) a less defensive style of play - armies will no longer sit in their settlements waiting for the enemy to come to them
(2) more tactical gameplay - we'll be able to make full use of these stances we've been given
(3) more value to the garrison - without an army sitting in vulnerable settlements the garrison units will need more attention than ever

I'm sure the clever people reading this post are already one step ahead of me now. But I shall continue this chain of thought anyway.. You've freshly taken a new settlement from your sworn enemy. The local population are understandably displeased with your presence, but your conquering army acts as a policing force, deterring revolt and dealing with the most unruly. Your army imparts a public order boost. However, as time wears on, the population begins to liken/adapt to your rule and culture, and the presence of the bored, boisterous army begins to cause negative public order. The larger the army the more the negative impact. Perhaps with the exception of very small armies (for example 3/4 units max) which would act more like a positive policing force and for the status of having a famous governor in town. The actual calculation of the public order penalty could potentially be tied to many different variables, for example: number of army units; length of time in settlement; proximity of enemy army; cultural % difference; conquered instability penalty; general gravitas (fame benefit); general traits.

The most astute of you may be asking:
- can these public order penalties still serve even if the army is within the red reinforcement range, otherwise every army would hang around outside the town instead?
- how would the CAI handle this overhaul?
- are these changes even possible?
- other intelligent questions...

..for which I have no idea the answer to.

Glad to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

With the public order penalties for buildings already messed up, my towns all have the same buildings, I don't think adding a negative affect to an army would work. When an army is there they add to the "police force" you could say. Citizens would feel safer also having a large army there, less crime more stability, better economy from men buying wares from the markets, blacksmiths, etc, Your stereotypical view of horny drunk aggressive men is a bit over the top IMO. In fact, Selea has already increased the likelihood of a field battle when attacking settlements. Garrisoning an army in a town is not a tactical benefit why should it be a negative? Stances can and are still used, and if you make garrisons stronger there would be no need to spend as much money on an army. The money side of fielding an army needs to be considered.

IMO it's a very stereotypical view. Until buildings squalor and food gets fixed then IMO this change would be far too detrimental. But thats just my opinion.

[rjacko10]

With the public order penalties for buildings already messed up, my towns all have the same buildings, I don't think adding a negative affect to an army would work. When an army is there they add to the "police force" you could say. Citizens would feel safer also having a large army there, less crime more stability, better economy from men buying wares from the markets, blacksmiths, etc, Your stereotypical view of horny drunk aggressive men is a bit over the top IMO. In fact, Selea has already increased the likelihood of a field battle when attacking settlements. Garrisoning an army in a town is not a tactical benefit why should it be a negative? Stances can and are still used, and if you make garrisons stronger there would be no need to spend as much money on an army. The money side of fielding an army needs to be considered.

IMO it's a very stereotypical view. Until buildings squalor and food gets fixed then IMO this change would be far too detrimental. But that's just my opinion.

Large armies were not historically stationed in settlements for long periods of time on top of the local garrison. If this is historically true then by this reason alone we should try to replicate that. I may have over-exaggerated the adjectives when describing the 'horny' armies, but seriously, 10,000 extra men in a settlement for 5 years would have out stay their welcome. They are not police officers, they are an army - trained to kill.

Stationing an army in a settlement is a massive tactical benefit because you're adding a whole heap of extra units to your army for free. Plus it's easier to defend narrow passage ways that can't be outflanked. I will never 'sally forth' as there is no point, and I'm slightly disappointed when the enemy AI does too, as it puts them at a disadvantage. This has only been implemented just so the player experiences more battlefield battles.

In the field at the moment what's the point in fort stance when a settlement acts as a much larger one, plus you get extra units? Like I said sitting in a settlements is too advantageous to pass up a lot of the time and the stances are therefore underused. The AI knows this and on legendary setting that's all the do. It's boring! On easier settings the AI comes out with weaker armies and the game is a lot more fun.

If the garrisons were to be stronger then of course your armies would still have to be large to overcome such garrisons, and of course, the larger AI armies out in the field. This point of yours baffled me the most..

[jamiedp88]

If the garrisons were to be stronger then of course your armies would still have to be large to overcome such garrisons, and of course, the larger AI armies out in the field. This point of yours baffled me the most..

I should have said: As much money on an army to defend* a weaker garrison means you have to use your army to defend the town as well (an army taken from your cap). If the garrison is strong you can just save the money or cap and use it elsewhere.(not attacking the garrison.)

[Quivis]

Could you somehow limit number of war dogs being used (IMHO you could even delete the whole unit)? I’ve just seen Roman AI army using 9 war dogs units in their 20 units army.

[GnaReffotsirk]

Guys, the death rate is too fast in battles. Maybe 30-50% slower, do you have one that has this?

[jamiedp88]

Guys, the death rate is too fast in battles. Maybe 30-50% slower, do you have one that has this?

You know how many people have said speed it up, slow it down, increase decrease etc?

[GnaReffotsirk]

You know how many people have said speed it up, slow it down, increase decrease etc?

I know. Maybe there's a version that still has the battle speed before it's been speed up, with all the goodies we can enjoy now.

Also, is there a version that reduces the moral penalties of an army facing a much bigger army? I find that my elite legions get destroyed simply because they're facing 2 enemy stacks.

Edit:

Also a few suggestions:

kv_rules has this missile saving thing. Reducing it to 10 in the past made skirmishers have more men throw their missiles per volley.

There's also a shield vs missile entry there. I use to reduce this to 0.15 and made shields more resistant to missiles.

The new pike entries there, where it says "10" for some delay or something, made opponents be repelled longer.