Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 64

Thread: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

  1. #21
    Autaritus's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Barcino
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cesco View Post
    Look in the first post, there is a surprise As always, your feedback will be very usefull
    Great! Thanks for the quick job, you'll have me inmediately playing and giving my view; this submod has become a classic, certainly.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    Does this sub mod apply and work with this mods campaign mods(Alexander and 4 emperor)?

  3. #23
    Cesco's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    595

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    Quote Originally Posted by tigger_t View Post
    Does this sub mod apply and work with this mods campaign mods(Alexander and 4 emperor)?
    Yes it does
    Huic ab adulescentia bella intestina, caedes, rapinae, discordia civilis grata fuerunt ibique iuventutem suam exercuit

  4. #24

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    I don't know what to think about reducing HP to 1 for all units. I was playing Alex campaign and my first battle (and only so far) with your submod was taken in desert near Babylon. I was attacked by enemy. My army wasn't well prepared (phalanx+cav only ). Anyway, my phalanx wasn't moving at all, I was waiting for enemy to approach. I've notice that even that my units were not moving they were losing stamina (cav units didn't). I thought to myself that this is cool- people who are not prepared to fight in such weather conditions get tired quickly. But this tiredness also applies to the "desert people", right?

    "najłatwiej i najpiękniej nie gnębić drugich, ale samemu nad sobą pracować, żeby być możliwie jak najlepszym" Sokrates

  5. #25
    Cesco's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    595

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon Soul View Post
    I don't know what to think about reducing HP to 1 for all units. I was playing Alex campaign and my first battle (and only so far) with your submod was taken in desert near Babylon. I was attacked by enemy. My army wasn't well prepared (phalanx+cav only ). Anyway, my phalanx wasn't moving at all, I was waiting for enemy to approach. I've notice that even that my units were not moving they were losing stamina (cav units didn't). I thought to myself that this is cool- people who are not prepared to fight in such weather conditions get tired quickly. But this tiredness also applies to the "desert people", right?
    This doesn't depend on my submod, but i think it's a feature that makes sense.
    Huic ab adulescentia bella intestina, caedes, rapinae, discordia civilis grata fuerunt ibique iuventutem suam exercuit

  6. #26

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    Your foot companions also tire from just being in the phalanx formation.
    Last edited by tigger_t; June 12, 2015 at 11:29 AM.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    To be clear- I also like this feature. And yes, this tiredness make sens.
    I just wanted to know if for example: will units from Mesopotamia get tired quick as units from Gaul, for both fighting in desert... ahh, nevermind.

    "najłatwiej i najpiękniej nie gnębić drugich, ale samemu nad sobą pracować, żeby być możliwie jak najlepszym" Sokrates

  8. #28
    bobbyr's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    418

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    Thanks for the submod. really appreciate the work!




  9. #29

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    I'll give some feedback. I did notice quality of troops are much bigger importance now. My first major battle in the Alexander 332 campaine is tyre. I tricked the Ai to attack me in the open field(Greek advantage here) as I always do. I avoid a city siege like a plague at tyre. They always have two big armies and one small one. Usually I use my cavalry to keep two of the armies busy and attack the troops from the ships like the athenas did to Darius in the first Persian war. I noticed this doesn't work so good now because of my cavalry gets tired and noticed immediately 1 hp difference. So I pulled back to the high ground let them form and fought in issus formation. Pikes engaged and cavary hammered the flank. Quick win from there. They were mostly levies after all. Too early to judge the 1hp system but I did notice infantry take far less damage fighting infantry. But before Levy armies and more professional armies fought with the same determination, which was rather silly. Most impressed, all infantry doesn't fought nearly to death and my cavalry are not so invincible now have to use some real strategy and stop being cheap! And when it got tough for a second my light cavalry routed from archer fire which is realistic but didn't happen before. Very good sub mod so far. Very interested how my infantries going to hold up in River Battles now

  10. #30

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    I'm impressed. Battles in the regular CAC tend to be too static, so it seems that last forever. Now they are more dynamic. The perfect complement to the work of Iutland and il Pitta +rep for all modders.

  11. #31
    Cesco's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    595

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    Quote Originally Posted by tigger_t View Post
    I'll give some feedback. I did notice quality of troops are much bigger importance now. My first major battle in the Alexander 332 campaine is tyre. I tricked the Ai to attack me in the open field(Greek advantage here) as I always do. I avoid a city siege like a plague at tyre. They always have two big armies and one small one. Usually I use my cavalry to keep two of the armies busy and attack the troops from the ships like the athenas did to Darius in the first Persian war. I noticed this doesn't work so good now because of my cavalry gets tired and noticed immediately 1 hp difference. So I pulled back to the high ground let them form and fought in issus formation. Pikes engaged and cavary hammered the flank. Quick win from there. They were mostly levies after all. Too early to judge the 1hp system but I did notice infantry take far less damage fighting infantry. But before Levy armies and more professional armies fought with the same determination, which was rather silly. Most impressed, all infantry doesn't fought nearly to death and my cavalry are not so invincible now have to use some real strategy and stop being cheap! And when it got tough for a second my light cavalry routed from archer fire which is realistic but didn't happen before. Very good sub mod so far. Very interested how my infantries going to hold up in River Battles now
    thank you, this is the kind of feedback i need. Yes, infantry vs infantry (but i should say melee in general) takes a more time with far less casualties. This is a choice in order to represent in a more realistic manner ancient warfare, were casualties during melee were few (it was very difficult to kill a man behind a shield, trying not be killed yourself!). This is particularly evident with pike units, wich used their pike not to kill enemies but mainly to push them in order to break their formation (plus we must consider that in Rome 2 pike units are very badly implemented, so it's very difficult to achieve a perfect balance for them...) Anyway with this submod the result of a melee greatly depends on fatigue (wich greatly affects morale) and tactical manouvres...at least that was my goal...
    since you're playing the alexander campaign, could you please report if in your opinion phalanges (in pike wall formation) are too vulerable to arrows?
    Last edited by Cesco; June 12, 2015 at 05:59 PM.
    Huic ab adulescentia bella intestina, caedes, rapinae, discordia civilis grata fuerunt ibique iuventutem suam exercuit

  12. #32

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    More feedback;

    I think archer damage is dead on. Sure the phalanx loses its fair share of troops on its slow march forward but it feels realistic. So far I tested three types of troops; hoplites= least loses. Foot companions= 2rd least and cheap infantry mercenaries = take the most. Hoplites have a big shield hence the name, phalanx has small shields but are tightly formed and the mercs I used are cheap Arab infantry deep in Iran and have very poor armor. I think it makes sense. Archers arnt complete killing machines but the AI use them to slowly pick me apart if unaddressed with cavalry.
    Last edited by tigger_t; June 13, 2015 at 05:48 PM. Reason: ��������

  13. #33

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    After playing a little more I decided to start over. This time I marched towards Babylon and fought Darius with Alexander's army so there would be no levies their best vs my best more or less. I got to experience the best of your mod here, least for this campaign(Greeks vs easterns) 2200 vs 1800 I was outnumbered but won. Lost 500 to their 900. Based on what this mod changes and what your trying to accomplish and of course understanding the true effect or consequences of fighting with tired troops I'd say this mod is dead on except one thing in my opinion the whole process seems to be too fast but only when cavalry is involved. Fighting armies with infantry and Ranged troops including ranged cavalry doesn't go as fast, who ever gets worn out or flanked first usually wins, which is how one would expect it but melee cavalry might need to be toned down a little bit. They really change the battles for either side, player and AI. It might be the main CAC mod or your sub mod not sure. Just my opinion. Still fantastic addition to this mod which is quickly becoming my favorite mod for this game By far.
    Last edited by tigger_t; June 13, 2015 at 06:37 PM. Reason: different point and grammar

  14. #34

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    I've the same impression as you. The cav units are strong and used to attack the enemy from rear, they make a difference. The battle overall speed, well it may be too fast but, to what I've said before, we both were fighting the Persians- big armies, low morale. The line between "static" battle phase and "critical" is thin. And yes, who flanked first usually wins but this not a rule, in my opinion.
    The light cav units have advantage in fighting "normal" cav (from distance of course). The melee units lines fighting each other are ok, until you hit them from rear with cav. The archers and skirmishers inflict less damage than in CAC. When general is dead, the battle is certainly won. I've noticed when the battle is won and you chase and cut the routing enemy, sometimes your cav units may flee also. It's probably connected with their level of fatigue.
    Last edited by Demon Soul; June 14, 2015 at 02:16 AM.

    "najłatwiej i najpiękniej nie gnębić drugich, ale samemu nad sobą pracować, żeby być możliwie jak najlepszym" Sokrates

  15. #35
    Cesco's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    595

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    I'm happy you like it.
    regarding missile damage, i think pike units should be more vulnerable to arrows than oplites, as you do, but i also think that the difference shouldn't be very big, when pikemen are in pike wal formation: a thick wall of spear should block a considerable amount of arrows.
    cavalvry units surely are really important, and they can inflict many damages if they managed to flank the enemy and then charge from behind, while a frontal charge is pretty uneffective, if the infantry is ready to receive it. In the next version i will try to reduce the damage cavalry inflicts from behind and to slow them down a little bit.
    Huic ab adulescentia bella intestina, caedes, rapinae, discordia civilis grata fuerunt ibique iuventutem suam exercuit

  16. #36

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    That's good to hear because it is exploitable for the AI and player as far as melee cavalry. But still the post battle results are so much more realistic. But I read what you said about archers and pikemen. Don't get the wrong idea foot companions in the phalanx formation are very strong Upfront against arrows. Hoplites are just little stronger. example; river battle. I'm holding Persia at bay at an river crossing in Syria while I conquer Egypt, long story short I'm holding it with just pikemen and they try to thin me out with archers before they charge but it doesn't work because the archers can't inflict enough loses, It does work after a couple battles and then they just over run me with pure numbers. So I think archers are perfect. Just my two cents. Keep up the great work

  17. #37

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    Take a look at this https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7r...ew?usp=sharing
    It's my best heroic victory
    I was defending small settlement. The enemy was attacking from 2 sides.

    "najłatwiej i najpiękniej nie gnębić drugich, ale samemu nad sobą pracować, żeby być możliwie jak najlepszym" Sokrates

  18. #38

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    One thing I noticed is that Hoplite Phalanx doesn't have any actual effects in game that I can discern - and you have a visually pretty solid (amateur opinion) list of effects for form_spear_wall, which as near as I can see from looking at the packs doesn't actually appear on any CAC units. Is this working as planned, or something that's still in flux?

    EDIT: Having dug deeper into how the unit abilities and the special ability phases line up in vanilla, I have realized parts of this are a very silly question.
    Last edited by Draewn; June 20, 2015 at 07:36 AM.

  19. #39
    bobbyr's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    418

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    After playing the CiG campaign quite a bit, I think trhat the Cohors Rei Publicae rout too quickly, especially the Evocati which are supposed to represent the first cohort in this mod.
    I think a little bit more morale for the regular cohorts and quite a bit more morale for the Evocati would be more realistic.
    I tested hard and medium battles.

    Everything else about this submod feels very very good.

    Btw, what does the 1 HP system change in terms of battle dynamics vs the regular HP system?

    Thanks




  20. #40

    Default Re: Battle overhaul submod! Version 5.0, compatible with CAC 1.0(10/6/2015)

    Can't speak to this specific implementation, but in general what 1HP does is prevents artificial variations in death rate on account of HP storage.

    Say we've got a unit of infantry, and they eat a javelin volley. With an HP system, a lot of the damage done by that volley just isn't visible - it looks like there are no casualties, even though in actually most of the health of a lot of the people is gone. Said infantry then get into a brawl with a chaff unit - and suddenly they start dying in droves inexplicably! What gives? Well, the javelins had run them out of HP, so while they were fine and everyone was still up and fighting after tanking the javelins, now that these peasants are managing to get a few HPs of damage in that would never cause notable casualties before, you've got a massive body-count. And with the information the game makes visible to the player, one can't actually tell the difference between "my javelins are utterly ineffective, but once the infantry get into combat they just wreck faces" and "the javelin volley did terrible terrible damage that just hasn't crossed the line to show up yet, that unit is basically cooked and it doesn't even know it yet".

    Instead with a 1HP system, some guys drop in the wake of the volley - and that's the extent. What you see is what you get. And to my mind, that makes a lot more sense - because I figure injuries in combat, whether today or in ages past, more or less fall into two categories - things that really are not fun to have but you can keep fighting through it so it doesn't amount to much, and things that put you down and out of a fight, whether you're actually going to die / be maimed or not. Given the fact that soldiers aren't debilitated for losing HP (and I'd argue trying to implement such a system would be unneeded detail that is more likely to hurt realistic results than help), they clearly aren't the latter, so they must be in the former category of things that don't have immediate impact on fighting capability. And so then we're left with the question - do we really want soldiers to need to take a few inconsequential wounds before they take a fatal one? What do we actually get out of tracking the inconsequential hits as wounding hits at all? We demonstrably lose mechanical transparency for doing so, and it complicates the question of whether Damage is best used to represent performance in defeating a soldier's protections, or their ability to actually put the soldier down - as we have to count both on the same scale. Anyway, the TL;DR is that it helps make sure what you're seeing on the battlefield is what you're getting, and that you don't have odd behaviors like archers doing no kills on the first three volleys and suddenly a dozen or more on the fourth.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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
  •