Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 270

Thread: Para Bellum

  1. #41

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    First battle report!

    God it was awesome! Early romans vs Gauls. Equal in numbers and unit quality. Since the days of Europa Barbarorum ive never enjoyed such a battle. It was bloody, long and brutal! 21 mins of fight.

    Sheridan i'm not familiar with battle mechanics but that was i am looking for months! Elites fight as elites till theyre surrounded.

    That was a real fight!

    My new Socii Extraordinarii against Gaulish Horde!

    Last edited by Little Legionaire; November 14, 2014 at 03:48 PM.

  2. #42
    Demokritos's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    2,288

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Good to hear your report coinciding with mine, LL.
    GNOTHI SEAUTON (Know Thyself) - precept inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Greece
    MEDEN AGAN (Nothing To Excess) - another precept inscribed in the aforementioned place

  3. #43

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Little Legionaire, it sounds like you had quite a battle! Awesome screenshot by the way. Let's hope there will be many more battles like that - and many more battle reports!
    Campaign modder for Ancient Empires


  4. #44

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheridan View Post
    Little Legionaire, it sounds like you had quite a battle! Awesome screenshot by the way. Let's hope there will be many more battles like that - and many more battle reports!
    My reports are "yea man that awesome" ish

    But Demokrotis' are like reading Marlborough, Napoleons maneuvers

    And no pike bug i can clearly say that. I removed conflicting mod.

  5. #45

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    I tried a battle against a hoplite and pike phalanx. For first time in rome 2, I have not seen pike phalanxes charging towards me casually. They went close then stopped. I thought they could do it, I mean slowly advancing in formation. Not, they did not. They formed an angled line then advanced in chaothic way, as single units, as usual. The first time I will see a pike phalanx advance as a single line, God, I will be happy.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/andrew881thebest youtube channel dedicated to rome 2 machinimas and movie battle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeOCm5MJJ14 battle in Germany from "Gladiator" movie remade

  6. #46

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Quote Originally Posted by andrew881thebest View Post
    I tried a battle against a hoplite and pike phalanx. For first time in rome 2, I have not seen pike phalanxes charging towards me casually. They went close then stopped. I thought they could do it, I mean slowly advancing in formation. Not, they did not. They formed an angled line then advanced in chaothic way, as single units, as usual. The first time I will see a pike phalanx advance as a single line, God, I will be happy.
    That's on the AI. I'm personally fine with it using pikes as individual units rather than a collective group or wide battle line, if it does it well anyway - but it doesn't really. You almost have to go back to the original Rome for that to happen.
    Campaign modder for Ancient Empires


  7. #47

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Quote Originally Posted by andrew881thebest View Post
    I tried a battle against a hoplite and pike phalanx. For first time in rome 2, I have not seen pike phalanxes charging towards me casually. They went close then stopped. I thought they could do it, I mean slowly advancing in formation. Not, they did not. They formed an angled line then advanced in chaothic way, as single units, as usual. The first time I will see a pike phalanx advance as a single line, God, I will be happy.
    Problem is as the Sheridan' said the AI my friend. AI is tend to use pike units not as formed battle lines. They don't engage fully locked and secured. This is a handicap and i feel you but imo (don't know the full modding mechanics though) its proly impossible to mod AI to use phalanx units realisticaly.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    I have a couple of new things that I'm working on - particle effects as already mentioned - but right now it would be interesting to hear if there are any suggestions or ideas for future improvements on the mod. This could mean tweaked current features of the mod, but also entirely new ones that you would like to see in it.

    It would be interesting to see some sort of unit collision implemented, that really works and without compromises on other ends that causes unwanted side effects. In theory this could be done by changing a few of the animations, that's something I personally would love to see added to the game/mod.
    Campaign modder for Ancient Empires


  9. #49
    Demokritos's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    2,288

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    What do you say about the idea to reduce the casualty rate, in line with history, but keep the battle length, Philip? It would also appear that the soldiers are fighting longer that way.

    Getting an overarm animation for Greek hoplites would be great!

    Regarding other animations, is it possible to make archers in elephant towers aim downwards against enemies close by? As it is now, they always appear to aim on far more distant targets.

    What about a greater diversity of weapons? Also in a given type of weapon. With variances in function. Which might force a change of tactics depending on what faction you play.

    I wonder if there should be a difference of cost for mercenaries depending on which faction is recruiting them. I mean, the recruitment of a given ethnic type of mercenaries ought to be more problematic if the faction trying to recruit them traditionally was their enemy rather than friend. A barrier overcome by higher pay.

    Like we discussed in PMs before, the quality of a given type of unit should differ depending on where it has had its training. Macedonian pikemen, for example, should be of higher quality than most other pikemen; Greek-style hoplites recruited in Greece perhaps better than any other Greek-style hoplites; etc.

    And, like we also talked about earlier, it would be nice to see cultural differences on a given type of units depending on where it is recruited. Persian-style clothing on Greek-type pikemen recruited in Persia, for example.

    Personally, I'd like to see the rosters of many factions, especially those in Africa and Arabia, expand a bit, in line with history. The Blemmyes, for example, should not only be able to recruit javelin-equipped (and mace-equipped) cavalry, but elephants as well. It's possible to enlarge many rosters with current type of units in game.
    Last edited by Demokritos; November 15, 2014 at 11:22 AM.
    GNOTHI SEAUTON (Know Thyself) - precept inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Greece
    MEDEN AGAN (Nothing To Excess) - another precept inscribed in the aforementioned place

  10. #50

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Quote Originally Posted by Demokritos View Post
    What do you say about the idea to reduce the casualty rate, in line with history, but keep the battle length, Philip? It would also appear that the soldiers are fighting longer that way.

    Getting an overarm animation for Greek hoplites would be great!

    Regarding other animations, is it possible to make archers in elephant towers aim downwards against enemies close by? As it is now, they always appear to aim on far more distant targets.

    What about a greater diversity of weapons? Also in a given type of weapon. With variances in function. Which might force a change of tactics depending on what faction you play.

    I wonder if there should be a difference of cost for mercenaries depending on which faction is recruiting them. I mean, the recruitment of a given ethnic type of mercenaries ought to be more problematic if the faction trying to recruit them traditionally was their enemy rather than friend. A barrier overcome by higher pay.

    Like we discussed in PMs before, the quality of a given type of unit should differ depending on where it has had its training. Macedonian pikemen, for example, should be of higher quality than most other pikemen; Greek-style hoplites recruited in Greece perhaps better than any other Greek-style hoplites; etc.

    And, like we also talked about earlier, it would be nice to see cultural differences on a given type of units depending on where it is recruited. Persian-style clothing on Greek-type pikemen recruited in Persia, for example.

    Personally, I'd like to see the rosters of many factions, especially those in Africa and Arabia, expand a bit, in line with history. The Blemmyes, for example, should not only be able to recruit javelin-equipped (and mace-equipped) cavalry, but elephants as well. It's possible to enlarge many rosters with current type of units in game.
    These are some really good ideas. I don't quite get the first one though, to be honest. If the casualty rate is decreased, the battle length would seemingly increase, unless you compensate with morale changes of course.

    The overarm animation idea is something we've talked about before and it would add a lot of flavor to factions using hoplites and similar units. It might be possible to create something even better though, that could more accurately depict the hoplite fighting style (the over/underarm grip is a debate we're all familiar with, I think the alternative that looks and plays best is the one we should be going for in the game and not necessarily the one that fits the historical context best).

    Weapons is another interesting area. Introducing new weapons would require some new units though, but that's not all too tricky to fix.

    About the idea of giving some new African and Arabian countries new units, that can easily be done. Maybe you could send me a PM with the factions you'd like to see expanded rosters with and we can discuss it in detail?
    Campaign modder for Ancient Empires


  11. #51
    Demokritos's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    2,288

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Here's the reasoning behind the first idea.

    In history, battles were usually over after lower casualty numbers than what we get in PB battles at the moment. I don't remember an example of the loss percentage in battles of this era and region of the world, but it seems the creator of a similar mod, Cesco, has done some homework on the issue:

    "These changes are based on the observation that during ancient battles a really low number of men died during combat, while they were mostly killed by cavalry when they routed: winner army had a small percentage of losses (5-10%), while the loser one suffered about 30-50% of casualties."

    If you remember my first battle report for RB, I found one slinger unit down to 10 soldiers but still fighting: what's the loss percentage of that without yet having been broken? And this with the losses after the collapse still to come. Other units in my battle, like some melee units, broke at lower loss percentage than that, probably because they were surrounded (as opposed to that slinger unit), but the casualty rate was still far higher than usual in history. But I liked the length of time it took before the units broke.

    Now, if the units are made to break at lower loss percentages, by lowering their morale, for example, then the battles in PB would be over more quickly. So, if the length of the battles is to remain the same with lower loss percentages, then the kill rate must be reduced. And this means the soldiers would have to fight more (longer) before being able to decimate the enemy.

    Regarding the idea with new weapons, if we're able to create a new weapon, like a mace of the type which Blemmye warriors used, isn't it possible to assign that weapon to an existing unit (replacing its current weapon)? Creating a new unit for each type of new weapon sounds like more work, which should be avoided, if possibe, in order to speed up dev times.

    As for the expanded rosters idea, I need to do some research before being able to suggest changes for all factions that ought to be considered for an upgrade here. All African and Arabian factions are currently limited to about 7-10 types of units (not counting siege units or ships). Other factions have up to four times that number, I think. But we can discuss this in more detail with PMs, yeah.


    PS. Is it possible to have the cost of maintaining a unit dependent on the manpower of that unit? Because it looks like the cost remains the same regardless whether the unit is in full strength or down to 1/20 of normal manpower. If so, then it seems odd and perhaps a better idea to disband units short on men and recruit a new unit rather than wait for the weak units to replenish themselves.
    Last edited by Demokritos; November 15, 2014 at 05:24 PM.
    GNOTHI SEAUTON (Know Thyself) - precept inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Greece
    MEDEN AGAN (Nothing To Excess) - another precept inscribed in the aforementioned place

  12. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Legionaire View Post
    Problem is as the Sheridan' said the AI my friend. AI is tend to use pike units not as formed battle lines. They don't engage fully locked and secured. This is a handicap and i feel you but imo (don't know the full modding mechanics though) its proly impossible to mod AI to use phalanx units realisticaly.
    ok, good then, since i love pike phalanx I was wondering why it is nso badly represented in battle. On my humble opinion it would not be hard to tell AI to make a line and advance until it closes with the enemy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheridan View Post
    These are some really good ideas. I don't quite get the first one though, to be honest. If the casualty rate is decreased, the battle length would seemingly increase, unless you compensate with morale changes of course.

    The overarm animation idea is something we've talked about before and it would add a lot of flavor to factions using hoplites and similar units. It might be possible to create something even better though, that could more accurately depict the hoplite fighting style (the over/underarm grip is a debate we're all familiar with, I think the alternative that looks and plays best is the one we should be going for in the game and not necessarily the one that fits the historical context best).

    Weapons is another interesting area. Introducing new weapons would require some new units though, but that's not all too tricky to fix.

    About the idea of giving some new African and Arabian countries new units, that can easily be done. Maybe you could send me a PM with the factions you'd like to see expanded rosters with and we can discuss it in detail?
    only since you quoted the underarm vs overarm "debate"....there is no serious debate on this. Over arm is very good and effective...unless you are in a hoplite wall of shields/phalanx. IN that case you can only use overarm since your shield is locked and you would not have room to do underarm. Then, you need to keep your spear angled, with butt towards the sky, because otherwise you thrust it in the eyes of the back row. So no doubt that HOPLITES used overarm, as clearly shown in EVERY picture. Seeing it in game woudl be cool.
    Last edited by Maximinus Thrax; November 17, 2014 at 03:34 PM. Reason: dp/merged
    https://www.youtube.com/user/andrew881thebest youtube channel dedicated to rome 2 machinimas and movie battle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeOCm5MJJ14 battle in Germany from "Gladiator" movie remade

  13. #53

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Quote Originally Posted by andrew881thebest View Post
    ok, good then, since i love pike phalanx I was wondering why it is nso badly represented in battle. On my humble opinion it would not be hard to tell AI to make a f....g line and advance until it closes with the enemy.
    Said a guy with absolutely no experience about coding what so ever, I doubt you ever saw a line of code let alone know how it works.

    About the mod, great job man, this mod really changed my experience, battle is not awfully long but still requires some head scratching, looking forward to more updates.

  14. #54

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Quote Originally Posted by Demokritos View Post
    Here's the reasoning behind the first idea.

    In history, battles were usually over after lower casualty numbers than what we get in PB battles at the moment. I don't remember an example of the loss percentage in battles of this era and region of the world, but it seems the creator of a similar mod, Cesco, has done some homework on the issue:

    "These changes are based on the observation that during ancient battles a really low number of men died during combat, while they were mostly killed by cavalry when they routed: winner army had a small percentage of losses (5-10%), while the loser one suffered about 30-50% of casualties."

    If you remember my first battle report for RB, I found one slinger unit down to 10 soldiers but still fighting: what's the loss percentage of that without yet having been broken? And this with the losses after the collapse still to come. Other units in my battle, like some melee units, broke at lower loss percentage than that, probably because they were surrounded (as opposed to that slinger unit), but the casualty rate was still far higher than usual in history. But I liked the length of time it took before the units broke.

    Now, if the units are made to break at lower loss percentages, by lowering their morale, for example, then the battles in PB would be over more quickly. So, if the length of the battles is to remain the same with lower loss percentages, then the kill rate must be reduced. And this means the soldiers would have to fight more (longer) before being able to decimate the enemy.

    Regarding the idea with new weapons, if we're able to create a new weapon, like a mace of the type which Blemmye warriors used, isn't it possible to assign that weapon to an existing unit (replacing its current weapon)? Creating a new unit for each type of new weapon sounds like more work, which should be avoided, if possibe, in order to speed up dev times.

    As for the expanded rosters idea, I need to do some research before being able to suggest changes for all factions that ought to be considered for an upgrade here. All African and Arabian factions are currently limited to about 7-10 types of units (not counting siege units or ships). Other factions have up to four times that number, I think. But we can discuss this in more detail with PMs, yeah.


    PS. Is it possible to have the cost of maintaining a unit dependent on the manpower of that unit? Because it looks like the cost remains the same regardless whether the unit is in full strength or down to 1/20 of normal manpower. If so, then it seems odd and perhaps a better idea to disband units short on men and recruit a new unit rather than wait for the weak units to replenish themselves.
    I still think you were playing that battle with the slingers on very hard though, after like 100-ish battles I've never had the same happen. Only elite units would break and potentially return at such numbers, any lower quality and they'd shatter. The morale penalty is quite severe at 50% casualties and very severe at 80%. A unit that has lost 80% of its strength within the last minute would actually lose 15 morale, a unit with a mere 3-4 couldn't hope to make up for that loss even by having secured flanks by allied troops for example.

    Anyway more to the actual idea. If I were to reduce the casualty rate generally speaking, the morale would have to be changed in a way that units rout even quicker from smaller casualties (and that's already much how it's designed - units rout pretty fast most of the time and return often multiple times to the battlefield). So what you are looking for can be achieved, but it will take a fair bit of tweaking. I think this would be better to release as some sort alternative, rather than as an update to the mod.

    Weapons can absolutely be assigned to existing troops, and the big advantage is that we wouldn't have to worry about new unit cards.

    On the PS note, I'm not entirely sure why it works that way (but it's probably a campaign mechanic thing). Although it's a detail, it's actually rather interesting. You could argue that it would cost more, or a lot anyway, to replenish troops in a near dead unit than maintaining a full new one with the logistics involved. Anyway I don't know how to change that, it seems like yet another static percentage thing CA didn't think about.
    Last edited by Sheridan; November 16, 2014 at 04:14 AM.
    Campaign modder for Ancient Empires


  15. #55

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Very cool battle mod but I do have one question. Since I don't see any missile damage value in unit stats, does that mean they're the same for all skirmishers or is it just hidden?

  16. #56

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Quote Originally Posted by kiwimaster View Post
    Very cool battle mod but I do have one question. Since I don't see any missile damage value in unit stats, does that mean they're the same for all skirmishers or is it just hidden?
    Glad that you're enjoying it!

    The damage is the same for all standard projectiles (stones, arrows and javelins/pila), just enough to kill a soldier with one hit if the soldier's shield and armour doesn't deflect and negate the damage. Javelins do have bonus versus elephants though, so you'll notice peltasts and javelinmen or velites being more effective against them than archers or slingers.
    Campaign modder for Ancient Empires


  17. #57

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Hmm, if the missile damage is the same for all skirmishers, doesn't that effectively make javelins useless compared to archers/slingers other than the few situations where you come across elephants (rare in most campaign battles for me)? There's also the fact that javelinmen have very few ammunition compared to archers and slingers. To a lesser extent, archers would then seem less useful than most slingers due to the range difference in cases of flanking shots where the need to arc missiles over friendly troops isn't necessary.

    As cool as I do think this battle mod is, I'm not sure if I can agree with this design change. If you're averse to having different missile damage values, may I at least suggest that javelinmen get substantially better melee/shield/morale values? My apologies if you feel that I'm unfairly criticizing your design philosophy.

  18. #58

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Quote Originally Posted by kiwimaster View Post
    Hmm, if the missile damage is the same for all skirmishers, doesn't that effectively make javelins useless compared to archers/slingers other than the few situations where you come across elephants (rare in most campaign battles for me)? There's also the fact that javelinmen have very few ammunition compared to archers and slingers. To a lesser extent, archers would then seem less useful than most slingers due to the range difference in cases of flanking shots where the need to arc missiles over friendly troops isn't necessary.

    As cool as I do think this battle mod is, I'm not sure if I can agree with this design change. If you're averse to having different missile damage values, may I at least suggest that javelinmen get substantially better melee/shield/morale values? My apologies if you feel that I'm unfairly criticizing your design philosophy.
    I think he already stated that javelins do have bonus against elephants. One thing though. About the "chance" of deflecting and negating, is it based on the armor of the target or the type of missle? Because I think javelins should have a higher chance of "piercing" (sort of) enemies' armors and shields than arrows and rocks and arrows more than rocks.

  19. #59

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Quote Originally Posted by kiwimaster View Post
    Hmm, if the missile damage is the same for all skirmishers, doesn't that effectively make javelins useless compared to archers/slingers other than the few situations where you come across elephants (rare in most campaign battles for me)? There's also the fact that javelinmen have very few ammunition compared to archers and slingers. To a lesser extent, archers would then seem less useful than most slingers due to the range difference in cases of flanking shots where the need to arc missiles over friendly troops isn't necessary.

    As cool as I do think this battle mod is, I'm not sure if I can agree with this design change. If you're averse to having different missile damage values, may I at least suggest that javelinmen get substantially better melee/shield/morale values? My apologies if you feel that I'm unfairly criticizing your design philosophy.
    If the accuracy and reload rate had been the same across all missile units, you would be right about javelins being rather useless. As of now though, javelins have the upper hand both in terms of reload rate and accuracy, since they're more often than not targeting units at a closer range compared to archers and slingers. They're also typically, although not always, cheaper than slinger and archer units as well. So at the end of the day javelin equipped units are useful against elephants, low-armoured infantry in particular or units locked into melee combat, but naturally not against other missile units with far superior range.

    The difference in archer and slinger range is pretty small and does not significantly affect how deadly either is. Elite slingers might get in an extra volley at best over elite archers in a scene where they engage each other, but due to the limited accuracy and deadliness for both weapons at such ranges it won't decide the outcome nearly to the extent at which an extra unit for either side would.

    I think your idea about giving javelinmen better combat values is good and very reasonable. Generally speaking they have a bit higher compared to the other missile units now, but I can agree that it should be further increased. That would give them more of an equal chance against some melee units.
    Campaign modder for Ancient Empires


  20. #60

    Default Re: Para Bellum

    Quote Originally Posted by diego007 View Post
    I think he already stated that javelins do have bonus against elephants. One thing though. About the "chance" of deflecting and negating, is it based on the armor of the target or the type of missle? Because I think javelins should have a higher chance of "piercing" (sort of) enemies' armors and shields than arrows and rocks and arrows more than rocks.

    When armour-piercing damage is added to the mixture, the missile balance generally becomes a mess. This is because AP has a draining effect (if a unit has multi-hp, which is not the case in the mod except for special units like elephants). It would be cool if javelins could sort of reduce shield defense though - defending yourself with a rather heavy javelin in your shield could get quite problematic I can imagine. To your question about the chance of deflecting damage, it depends on both basically you might say. The projectile deals a certain amount of damage if it successfully hits a soldier (and isn't blocked by the shield), but the armour may or may not deflect that damage. The higher the armour, the more damage will be deflected typically - but it's based on chance still, via a dice roll if I recall correctly. So if a unit has 5 armour for example, and a projectile deals 5 damage, between 0 and 5 of the damage can be neglected. In other words the missile might be instantly fatal, or it might not really cause any damage at all. That's more of an example for how things work in vanilla though, it's a bit different with 1 hp.
    Campaign modder for Ancient Empires


Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •