Love Roma Surrectum Campaign but Battles takes way to long - Any fixes ?

[Abhi899]

Hey Guys ,

I just tried Roma Surrectum 2 (2.6) for the first time and playing as Sparta ( V.Hard Campaign + Hard Battles )

I really like the new campaign - ability to recruit whole legions in one turn + good economy

The only downside is the length of the battles - it takes so frigging long for two whole armies that the battle counter runs out before either sides wins or loses.

This also makes it less interesting if you or the enemy have 2-3 armies , the battle would end and the first army would still be locked in battle with their counter parts.


I tried several mods to fix that :

1 . Sticky topic in submods : http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...bmod-for-RS2-6

Noticed absolutely no difference at all ! - timer ended and battle still wasn't over


2 . http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...battles-submod

Didn't even get to battle -The economy was pretty bad to be able to build huge armies and counter the greeks
the mod changed the upkeep costs for the units




Are there any good mods that makes the battles slightly faster without changing the gameplay (campaign )

I still like the new longer battles tho ( unit doesn't rout as fast ) , but when 2 heavy units clash - damn its slow ( even at 2x speed)

I just want their kill rate to be a bit faster ( not vanilla fast - but in the middle )

[onmy6]

I for one like the lond battles, but a also put a tick in the no battle time limit box when you star new campaign some battles can be epic but hey thats jusy my preference

[Abhi899]

I for one like the lond battles, but a also put a tick in the no battle time limit box when you star new campaign some battles can be epic but hey thats jusy my preference

I actually prefer the long battles too , but i will never be able to complete the campaign at this rate

Need faster battles ( 25%-50%)

[neep]

I actually prefer the long battles too , but i will never be able to complete the campaign at this rate

Need faster battles ( 25%-50%)

I know what you mean, the whole campaign feels slower - but less gamey
One thing you might want to look at is how you're running your battlefield tactics. Rolling up with a wide line of your troops and butting heads for 30 minutes would work but gets tedious.
I find that I'm usually working on several mini-battles within the over battlefield - trying to outflank or apply hammer 'n' anvil tactics.
When I switched to RSII I found that I needed to rethink my tactics a little to make better use of the different game play. Expecting to hit the enemy hard and then have them break and run after 2 minutes just didn't work, it ended up being a big scrum.

[Abhi899]

Any submods or files - for faster battles only ( no other changes to campaign )

p.s : Can i turn the battle time limit off during a campaign >?

[LoGaL]

yes you can: open menu, options , then i think it's game settings
Btw ,in my opinion you should really work on your battle tactics: usually my battles last 10-15 mins
As it has alrdy been said: long like butt heads = long long long battle and you don't want this, right?

[Dramatic Cat]

words

Let me guess. You're trying to win battles by pointless infantry grindowns right?

Don't do that bro. Bring cavalry to the party and Hammer-and-Anvil the outta the AI.
Siege engines and flank attacks by flaming arrows are good ways to break any army in less than 10 minutes.

:v

[ur-Lord Tedric]

...................Don't do that bro. Bring cavalry to the party and Hammer-and-Anvil the outta the AI.
Siege engines and flank attacks by flaming arrows are good ways to break any army in less than 10 minutes.
.........

Gamey, very gamey - might as well play Vanilla. In all honesty, if you want faster battles and a more absorbing Campaign (in terms of variety, etc) - then Rome2 is probably the best thing.

The battles in RSII are the/can be the closest to reality that I've seen - if you let them.

[iLeeT_PeeP]

Gamey, very gamey - might as well play Vanilla. In all honesty, if you want faster battles and a more absorbing Campaign (in terms of variety, etc) - then Rome2 is probably the best thing.

The battles in RSII are the/can be the closest to reality that I've seen - if you let them.

"VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

ur-Lord...

Quoting this statement... What exactly is bugged out about VH campaign difficulty? It is very obvious that less gold income is taken in through your settlements and you are attacked a WHOLE LOT more by different factions...

So what EXACTLY is the problem with it?

-iLeeT_PeeP

[Kenny Works]

Gamey, very gamey - might as well play Vanilla. In all honesty, if you want faster battles and a more absorbing Campaign (in terms of variety, etc) - then Rome2 is probably the best thing.

The battles in RSII are the/can be the closest to reality that I've seen - if you let them.

Care to elaborate?

I get that some tactics might seem "gamey" either because they take advantage of some flaw in the game engine or a mod design, but flanking your enemy and striking from the rear seems like a fairly effective battle plan to me. After all, I don't play to purposely lose.

[Alavaria]

Don't do that bro. Bring cavalry to the party and Hammer-and-Anvil the outta the AI.
Siege engines and flank attacks by flaming arrows are good ways to break any army in less than 10 minutes.

Gamey, very gamey - might as well play Vanilla. In all honesty, if you want faster battles and a more absorbing Campaign (in terms of variety, etc) - then Rome2 is probably the best thing.

The battles in RSII are the/can be the closest to reality that I've seen - if you let them.

Archer flanking is the way to go.

Horsemen have problems, the main one of which is that charging into the back of phalanx units can get people killed. Also, they're expensive, and if you get bogged down, which happens, it gets painful.

On the other hand, archers on your left (your enemy's right) get to use their blinged out missile attacks into the enemy, bypassing their defense and shield value. It's the best way to kill Romans and phalanx troops. Naturally, your greenest line troops are on your left, increasing in ability somewhat to the right of your line. But the best soldiers are guarding the flanking archers.

Each dificulty setting in the game is supposed to give the AI more bonuses than the player....easy, medium, hard, etc. However, in VH campaign mode, the player gets the SAME bonuses as the AI, and in our testing, this resulted in the player getting more money than in hard. So we recommend that players only play in Hard campaign mode.

I recall checking this. Getting more money helps you a lot, the AI is as bad with that last gob of free gold as with it's initial one.

VH battle mode makes AI armies almost ridiculously hard...this was also extensively tested, and these bugs have been known for a long time. Not saying you can't play VH if you wish. Just 'recommending' that it is not the hardest way to play the game.

Yeah, it is pretty much giving them +8 attack (remembering off the back of my head). This makes anything (non-phalanx) that relies on engaging in melee a fairly terrible idea.

You'll notice that a harder battle difficulty does not reduce your archer attack or increase the enemy armor values. With "slow" battles what happens is the infantry will flail about, while a couple of units of archers will be wiping units off the map in record time. (Your cavalry may get more kills due to routers, especially if you get a good chain rout going). Quality horse (like your generals) are also helpful, as a good charge is as effective on VH, as you rely on killing a lot of the enemy before they can do anything. But beware spears and especially phalanxes, on VH you can charge their rear and lose your whole unit of horse to no effect.

[dvk901]

Each dificulty setting in the game is supposed to give the AI more bonuses than the player....easy, medium, hard, etc. However, in VH campaign mode, the player gets the SAME bonuses as the AI, and in our testing, this resulted in the player getting more money than in hard. So we recommend that players only play in Hard campaign mode. VH battle mode makes AI armies almost ridiculously hard...this was also extensively tested, and these bugs have been known for a long time. Not saying you can't play VH if you wish. Just 'recommending' that it is not the hardest way to play the game.

Also, there are alternate EDU.text files for all campaigns in the _important_stuff folder that increase lethality and can make battles shorter. The OP should try those.

[z3n]

How certain are you difficulty is best on hard? Doesn't the AI recruit more mercs and the best units it can on VH?

[High Fist]

But you get more bonuses and along with the AI, so you're not at as much of a disadvantage.

Plus, what the AI recruits isn't decided by the campaign difficulty, but by how much money it has.

[z3n]

Are you sure about that statement? To be honest, I spend majority of my time modding and then testing for a specific thing. I've skirted around this area before by adjusting the upkeep for a unit to be a more favourable choice for the AI and seen it spam them thereafter. This however confirms, although not completely that the AI does factor in money.

I just came up with an idea as I was writing this, perhaps I will find more answers in the campaign ai file for MTW2. I haven't really ever looked at that since I work in RTW but it sounds like it might have the answer.

[High Fist]

Are you sure about that statement?

I'm not, but these guys have been developing this mod since 2006. I'd be willing to bet that they're sure.

[iLeeT_PeeP]

I can definitely tell from the start that all my provinces take in LESS INCOME. So I would consider this harder?

Also the AI army's seem to come from everywhere on VH and with many factions...

-iLeeT_PeeP

[dvk901]

It isn't ONLY us that have made this observation about the VH\VH settings in RTW........most of the long term modders I've known would agree. In fact, I first heard it from them. I was also a bit skeptical....until our beta testers started reporting that they were getting wildly different results playing on VH than others playing on H\H.

The thing is, we spent a shedload of time configuring and testing this mod, originally, to be played on H\H settings (versions 2.0-2.5). But we still didn't like the results. So 2.6 was configured to be played on M\M or M\H. That way, if you play it on H\H...it's going to be pretty hard. It is a known fact that the VH bonuses are 'wrong' for the campaign AI and player....VH battle settings are just unrealistic.

I'm not saying that you can't play RS2 on VH\VH if you want, and find it a good way to play for yourself. We just don't recommend it overall.

[Kenny Works]

So 2.6 was configured to be played on M\M or M\H. That way, if you play it on H\H...it's going to be pretty hard.

Well, I didn't get that memo and started a Roman campaign on H\H. And for the record, it's hard.

I've managed to survive and even start to grow, but every battle that I fight on the battle map is a grind. At first, I thought it really was just that the battles were taking too long, but no, I lose a lot more battles as Rome now than I in any other instantiation of this game or any mod (I haven't played every mod, of course).

I tried to take Carthage with three legions and no spies (to skip the garrison script). It was brutal. I fought for two days (evenings after work) just to take Carthage and the surrounding area. I ended up fighting five or six stacks (some weren't full stacks, but close). But the time I was done, my legions were thinned and if one more stack had come, I might have lost.

Maybe I'll go back and start a M/H campaign.

[High Fist]

M/M is king, IMO. Might just be lazy but I don't get a huge amount of time to play and when I do, I wanna make progress.