After reading the 0.95 patch preview i have just one thing to say

[Tundra98]

Well would you look at that, i would've never pictured this mod being Stainless Steel Part 2

You guys are bringing so many changes to the vanilla experience (good changes) that it is really a sight to behold.

Hell, you guys implemented the exact same idea i had for being implemented in a campagin (the Garrison one), which was kinda creepy, since it seemed like you could read my mid xD

I want to play this mod so badly, but i really cant stand my elite sword unit losing to normal hoplites thanks to that initiative vs deadliness thing, and my pikes getting 40 kills when the rest of my guys get double that minimum.

Omg i just want this mod to be released, so you guys balance it taking into account all the feedback given to you!

Good luck DEI team, keep up the good work, the community thanks you!

[BehlndU]

+1, i'm also eager for 1.0 because of the balancing changes as i'm sure we're getting some pretty interesting/amazing and possibly new(?) stuff regarding that matter.

[PcolaTy]

Well would you look at that, i would've never pictured this mod being Stainless Steel Part 2

You guys are bringing so many changes to the vanilla experience (good changes) that it is really a sight to behold.

Hell, you guys implemented the exact same idea i had for being implemented in a campagin (the Garrison one), which was kinda creepy, since it seemed like you could read my mid xD

I want to play this mod so badly, but i really cant stand my elite sword unit losing to normal hoplites thanks to that initiative vs deadliness thing, and my pikes getting 40 kills when the rest of my guys get double that minimum.

Omg i just want this mod to be released, so you guys balance it taking into account all the feedback given to you!

Good luck DEI team, keep up the good work, the community thanks you!

Completely agree with you.

[Summary]

I agree with you.

But there is another thing I would like to point out is that when using the new army food consumption mechanism, the AI should be smart enough to not shoot themselves in the foot by poor management of armies resulting in food scarcities and starvation.

On the swords versus hoplites, I can only hope since everyone has a different opinion of the outcomes. The way I see it, is very clear, if a hoplite phalanx isn't flanked it should be very hard to defeat and casualties sustained should be high. If they are flanked they are easier to defeat and casualties sustained should be low.

Currently even elite hoplites lose to medium hoplites as they have only 2 initiative as opposed to 3 initiative. I cannot assert that initiative is the issue for this imbalance, but none the less the imbalance is present. In theory, higher reach trumps over lesser reach unless the distance is close, then the opposite holds true. This is why flanking phalanxes be it phalangite or hoplite should be an extremely crucial part of countering such a unit. I think DeI does a great job with cavalry charging the rear of such formations and should somehow find a method to apply the same effect for sword infantry that manages to do so.

To summarize:

In a head-to-head clash (distance is maintained, reach trumps):
Phalangites > Hoplites > Spear men > Sword men

When flanked (close quarter is initiated, ease of movement trumps):
Sword men > Spear men = Hoplite > Phalangite

Hoplites and phalangites should have movement modifiers to make them harder to maneuver. Hoplites and phalangites should not have charge bonus, they do not charge just mere engage and then push forward pinning enemies down, killing them as they advance. Spear men and sword men should have more charge bonus because their main objective is to get in reach and slam into the enemy using their shields (charging head-on into a phalanx unit should have a reverse effect). Hoplites can have charge bonus if out of formation, because now they are typically spear men, but after the charge, once they are engaged in combat they should not be able to form a phalanx. Basically it is a choice between sheer offensive power or offensive stability.

Notice from the summary all units have a chance to defeat the other depending on whether or not criteria for victory is achieved or maintained. This is not a rock paper scissor methodology. This will force players to focus on maintaining their strengths and expose the oppositions weakness rather than just order a charge and let stats take control.

[shawn858]

When flanked (close quarter is initiated, ease of movement trumps):
Sword men > Spear men = Hoplite > Phalangite

I wonder how this would work out if they gave hoplites their spear AND sword.

[Summary]

I wonder how this would work out if they gave hoplites their spear AND sword.

Good point, I wanted to include this but exactly what KAM said came to mind and this is why I avoided it all together. In the case, that hoplites do have a secondary weapon in the form of a sword then hoplites should stand a better chance against sword infantry depending of what sword they are using. There are three major (but not limited to) possibilities here:

Xiphos: A double edged short sword used for slashing, hacking, thrusting. Toe-to-toe with a Gladius.
Kopis: A single edged sword used for slashing and hacking. Stands a distinct disadvantage against a Gladius but useful against other hoplites and spear infantry when in close quarters.
Lakonia Short Sword: A double edge short sword used for slashing, hacking, thrusting. This is the Spartan weapon of choice should the dory spear be rendered useless. Toe-to-toe with a Gladius.

In the case of the Xiphos and the Lakonia Short Sword they are the apt Greek counterpart to the Roman Gladius, the main disadvantage the Greeks would face is the coverage offered by the Hoplon versus the Roman Scutum. Although the Hoplon is stronger (bronze versus wood) and can be used offensively as well.

Romans didn't fight like the Greeks, line to line clashes and the better equipped, more disciplined troops win. In fact, on average the Roman infantry equipment wasn't as good as their Greek rivals. But Romans were master tacticians and Rome was a military state with a solid economy. They were simply able to sustain loses and churn out equipment and troops faster than any other nation at the time. I think a simple way of putting it is that their enemies were more skilled but, the Romans were more disciplined and as a result were able to take calculated risks and losses to ensure a victory when looking at the larger picture.

[KAM 2150]

CA limited units to only single weapon stat vice. There is a trick to allow spear units to attack with swords but there would be no stat difference, for example sword would still have anti cav bonus etc.

[Maetharin]

CA limited units to only single weapon stat vice. There is a trick to allow spear units to attack with swords but there would be no stat difference, for example sword would still have anti cav bonus etc.

But it would look cooler ^^

[KAM 2150]

But it would look cooler ^^

You mean like this unit posted on our fb page month ago?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[A_I]

why almost all here wanna show how romans was weak?

"they have weak armor..."
"They wasn`t good fighters"
" They was just numbers"
"they ...( put here what u want)"

Any weak army don`t take half of world... They defeat almost all nations. I think is just

And yes they got good armor, they fight perfectly in formation.

they defeat all nations... till time they split their country.

Not because of money, Italy don`t have more man than other nations they just was good enought to defeat rest.

Better generals better tactics better fighters better eqiupment,

[Tripledot]

Better generals better tactics better fighters better eqiupment,

Better logistics.

[Ritter-Floh]

why almost all here wanna show how romans was weak?

"they have weak armor..."
"They wasn`t good fighters"
" They was just numbers"
"they ...( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso )"

Sorry for offtopic, but this must be answered!

[Summary]

why almost all here wanna show how romans was weak?

"they have weak armor..."
"They wasn`t good fighters"
" They was just numbers"
"they ...( put here what u want)"

Any weak army don`t take half of world... They defeat almost all nations. I think is just

And yes they got good armor, they fight perfectly in formation.

they defeat all nations... till time they split their country.

Not because of money, Italy don`t have more man than other nations they just was good enought to defeat rest.

Better generals better tactics better fighters better eqiupment,

Nobody here wants to show how the Romans were weak. They weren't weak. But they weren't God like either. To mods the stats such that a fool who would charge a pike phalanx with a legionary unit and still win would be the death of all common sense. This is what I am against. I think Romans were stronger because they used their brains better. Romans could adapt. They began with the hoplite type infantry then swapped to maniples and copied the celtiberian scutum and gladius. They had better generals and better logistics and that counts for a lot more than equipment and skill. Too many cartoons and movies depict segmentata armor but they were in fact a rarity used by the elites and the generals, the majority of the army used chain or mail armour which offers better coverage but is less sturdier than a bronze cuirass. Romans weren't the best fighters doesn't mean they weren't good. They were good soldiers, there is a difference. A fighter is one who fights to win, a soldier is one who follows orders and the Romans were best at that. And Romans did have more men that other nations because they conscripted the vanquished into their ranks with promises of land and citizenship. This manner of assimilation gave them a huge advantage over their enemies.

[m_1512]

But what exactly is the issue here?

[SirPeacemaker]

Hmm and I just wanted to start a new campaign (after 4 months of not playing). But I think I shouldnt start it, because if there will be new update out my old save will be useless...... Bad timing damn....

[SirPeacemaker]

Ok guys, now I am confused. I thought Steam just downloaded something and you are saying you want this mod to be released? And how many parts has this mod now?? (I didnt play this game/mod for about months now)

[Matmannen]

Ok guys, now I am confused. I thought Steam just downloaded something and you are saying you want this mod to be released? And how many parts has this mod now?? (I didnt play this game/mod for about months now)

Writing released he/she meant released as fill verson 1.0 , leaving the beta stage...

[Dresden]

There are 6 parts right now. The update hasn't been released. When it is, there will be 7.

[mephhhh]

is there a ETA on patch .95? i dont wanna abandon a campaign halfway through

[PcolaTy]

is there a ETA on patch .95? i dont wanna abandon a campaign halfway through

Dresden was saying sometime next week is their goal.