Deeper level strategy and realism
I know that 1.0 is almost entirely balancing, but for the future I have brainstormed some ideas to make Rome 2 more strategic and realistic. Many of these may not be possible, but I'd like to see thoughts, discussion, and other ideas.
1. Terrain. I don't know to what level terrain affects the actual battlefield, but I would like to see hills make a serious difference in an engagement. Also, I know the maps are not moddable, but is it possible to position ones armies on the campaign map so that their are terrain features that can be used to guard a flank, like a river, ravine, or rocky terrain. Certain types of terrain could give advantages to certain units. Flat ground favoring close order heavy infantry, while hills or forest could boost loose order forces. These terrain additions would make choosing ground important and could help the commander maximize the effectiveness of certain units. Hoplites and pikes would be best suited for flat ground, barbarian forces would be best in rough terrain and forests, and Roman troops because of their flexibility would be fairly well suited for both. This would give each faction a different feel and different advantages and disadvantages.
2. Camps. This is probably rather difficult, but could the fortify stance become a sort of camp stance. Often armies would form up camps and prepare for battle. These camps would be well fortified and if one army did not want to give battle they would be in a secure position to wait for reinforcements. When the AI or player believes they can win they drop camp stance and prepare for battle. However, if they do not believe they can win they then they wait for an advantage. I will cover advantages in a bit. Camps should not be completely unassailable, good generals should be able to assault them. Another option is the night assault. This could be a trait for high level generals that could be performed on less experienced generals. Example, trait +% chance of successful night assault. Another could be +% chance at stopping a night assault. The night assault would be difficult to pull off but the results would be brutal. Units in the camp would receive serious debuffs would stand little chance of survival.
3. Skirmish phase. This is probably another difficult thing to implement, but we will see. I feel that current battles skirmish phases are often over in less than 30 seconds. Historically they lasted much longer. There are two options. Somehow increasing the phase in battle either by allowing all skirmishers to form up outside the deployment zone or...something else. The other option, which is the advantage between camps I mentioned early, skirmishes between light armed and cavalry could possibly occur between the camps.* I have no idea how or if this would work.
4. Sieges. I know everyone knows that these could still use some revamping, but here are some ideas. And by the way DeI team, nice garrison addition. Historically, fortified cities were rarely taken by direct assault, or if they were it required massive resources. Walled cities should be much easier to defend, defenders need some form of weapon or advantage over siege ladders as those are very overpowered. Defenders should have tons of ammunition. Historically only a prolonged siege would weaken the amount of ammunition the defenders had. Towers should be buffed, oil needs some serious fixing and perhaps the mobs can throw stones. Attacking forces should require at the very least two to one odds in order to win an assault. Another cool implementation could be assault attempts.* The attacker could attempt an assault, but if not successful they can still maintain the siege. At the same time perhaps the defenders could sally and destroy siege equipment. Since assaults should be extremely difficult and often impossible or not practical there should be a realistic alternative. This would be treachery or once again night assaults. Treachery could perhaps be linked to the political system with different factions struggling for power, even if it means using outside forces. The gates would be open, and the defenders wiped out. The city would then become a client to the victors with the traitor faction now in control. The other option is the night assault which I think would be really awesome. Perhaps link this with champion or something, give them a small elite unit to secretly climb the wall at night and secure the gatehouse allowing the army to enter the city.
5. Ambushes. So far with the current system ambushes turn into field battles. The AI instantly forms a battle line and almost all advantage is lost. The ambushed should be confused and demoralized. They should also be maybe a bit more spread out so that the ambushers can focus on certain sections of the line. The battle of Lake Traismene is a good illustration of what a successful ambush should look like. Certain units may hold the line and escape, but most stand little chance. Perhaps add an ambush trait, once again making experienced generals even more useful.
Semi-related: Ambushes in battle. Trebia is prime example an ambush in battle. Hannibal stationed elite troops in brush to ambush the Romans. Perhaps some elite units, or a new sort of ambush heavy infantry can gain the ability to deploy outside of the the zone. This would give elite units some more strategic use.
6. Client Levying. What really irked me with the Rome 2 system is the almost uselessness of clients. They are essentially allies that pay you a bit, but AI allies are really, really not that helpful when it comes to war. So far the player can levy a few units off clients, but these are usually weak and few and far between. This system that I would like to present is modeled off of the Romans relationship with their Latin and Italian allies, Carthaginian relationship with Libya (maybe, need to do more research) and also Eastern satraps. Quite simply, the owner of the client can recruit full armies off of the client. This is accurate because Romans held over all command over the ala as did other nations over their client armies. For the Romans, the samniciti troops (allied troops) now become recruit able only from allies (this applies mainly to HatG right now, but current map could be modified). Now I'm not 100% sure how ancient systems worked, but I would assume that the client pays for the troops. The client itself can muster small defensive armies, but mainly their troops fight for the client owner. Now, making clients is actually very beneficial, and losing them is very damaging.
Semi-related: With the changes above making clients is all very cool and stuff, but often the player wants to own land also. Plus, having a divided Italy the whole game would be rough. That is where confederations come into play. Over time as relations become better, the client owner can choose to assimilate the client state into their nation.
*These systems would require the ability to engage portions of an army in combat while the rest of the army maintains its position on the campaign map. Can this be added?
Sorry for the block of text, hopefully some of these ideas can be implemented. Thoughts, discussion, other ideas on realism and more strategy are greatly appreciated.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Dresden
