[New experimental stuff]More challenging, BAI friendly battles - 13.07.2015 update

[MagicCuboid]

Hah no Butan, I think you're right. scrub_spotting, tree_spotting, etc. seem pretty clearly to say to me that those are separate ranges at which hidden enemies are spotted, depending on their cover. For that reason, I've left those at vanilla levels in the pack I released.

As for why there are two values, this is common in Total War games. Units are assigned "relative" values for balancing, and then these secondary tables are quick ways to alter every single unit in some way, thus altering game mechanics as a whole rather than unit-to-unit balance.

[zonks40]

I think one is the distance that the unit can be spotted, the other the ability to spot, I think the best way to test that theory is to see what the value is for Elephants in scrub.

[Butan]

I think one is the distance that the unit can be spotted, the other the ability to spot, I think the best way to test that theory is to see what the value is for Elephants in scrub.

I think both tables are the ability to spot, because strangely, you can see in that screen that every units with "elite scouting" have the same values, and its the same for every scouting level. I thought at first like you, that it was their "visibility" and that it would be somehow relative to their in-game size and appearance, but you can see that (for example) a mothering giant ballista has an inferior value to javelinmen so it cant be that.
Then maybe as MagicCuboid said the secondary table (hiding_spotting_values) overrides every units spotting levels with a minimum of editing.

[Butan]

I confirm the secondary tables overrides all


I tested those values: (invisibility up to 1 meter, visibility of non-hidden at 2500 meters, and hiding in scrub/forests = detected at 10 meters distance)




And I could do this in a battle


Hiding javelinmen until discharging at very close range:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hiding a bunch of big melees 100 meters at the right of my right flank until coming out:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Was incredibly fun, but as Krixux found out, the AI can only cope with what it sees, so I completely destroyed him with those "realistically OP" hiding values.
It is clear that the AI has a tendency to form correct strategies when it sees all your units. Like some reported, the units I left unhidden were very correctly managed and attacked/flanked.

So yeah, if you want to edit hiding just edit that table. I left land_units completely untouched and it worked as is.


Side note: in a multiplayer campaign head-to-head "play as AI" only game, a submod where hiding is represented nicely and realistically set it would be super ingly awesome and forests/scrubs would really mean danger and traps.

Double on the side bonus note:the AI was also hiding its units in a smart way and in the late game it ambushed my general unit (didnt see it coming thanks to 10 meters hiding) from the far left forest as I was mopping the rest up. I destroyed it but the move was genuinely awesome and the unit clearly used an ambush path, not just "parallel direct approach" classic.
AI hiding potential could be a double edge trick to metabattles.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[YMIL]

Interesting I will try this I found the battles to be far too slow since I could easily out manouvre the AI.

[krunsh]

A mix of enhanced hiding and longer view range for AI seems like a good mix. And if the hiding makes the game to easy, the value can be altered later on.

As mentioned, this would make for an amazing change in head to head campaigns. I hope this all makes it in the official mod soon(Or at least in one of those fix packs Dresden puts together.)!

[Richard III]

Gotta say I do like these new battles. As many have said, they're not necesarily shorter in length. But they I feel the faster kill rate makes the battle feel faster than it really is.

Nonetheless, great job Kam for constantly refining battle balance.

and P.S Krixux Great job with researching all these hidden possibilities, your coming up with some real gems it seems!

[MagicCuboid]

So that we don't take over KAM's thread, I've made a submod for spotting and hiding distances http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...5#post14343495 .

The conversation can continue there!

[Butan]

A good idea, I felt we were starting to eat KAM's topic hopefully by wednesday we will be at page 11 and he wont find out


Anyway while testing hiding & stuff, I did lots of skirmishes and mini campaign battles and I can confirm that the actual 30 january version of KAM's experimental simply works better than base DeI combat.

[MagicCuboid]

Yeah KAM has basically made himself the expert on Rome 2 combat mechanics, I think. I'm quite happy with the January 30th revision as well . Combined with LOS changes, I've even lost a battle with a full Consular legion! Granted, it was partially my dumb Massilian allied general's fault... charging in without any discipline, mumble grumble..

[Sharpe_116]

Hey KAM, dunno if you remember me but i started a thread about EXACTLY this line of thought a few weeks ago and you referred me to the faster combat mods. I'm very happy to see you've been playing around with the combat =) I cant wait to try this mod

[Kauzer]

Tested.
Won like 8 battles with x1,5 or x2 men lost more then before. That was because my cavalary could not kill enemy missile units fast enough. But.... Cavalary rly need some speed buff. Slingers can run away from very tired heavy cavalary. This looks just stupid rly.

Imho all units needs more speed , they kill each other in like 30 sec/ pack but cant run.... At the moment i cant play with it , but i'm sure that many ppl like it. So thx for yr work mate.

[BooBooLovesAll]

Tested.
Won like 8 battles with x1,5 or x2 men lost more then before. That was because my cavalary could not kill enemy missile units fast enough. But.... Cavalary rly need some speed buff. Slingers can run away from very tired heavy cavalary. This looks just stupid rly.

Imho all units needs more speed , they kill each other in like 30 sec/ pack but cant run.... At the moment i cant play with it , but i'm sure that many ppl like it. So thx for yr work mate.

I had my villari (sp) run down by a bunch of medium melee infantry.

[citizen-ychoux]

In my opinion, this attempt is a massive step in the good dire ction.

I hated battles in DEI before. It was way too easy and boring. Get the cheapest infantry, stuck the ennemy lines with it for 15 minutes before they lose 1 man. Meanwhile run down their cavalry, do a rear charge. Voilà, mass rout, heroic victory.

Now it is very interesting and fun.

Some remarks :

1/ i would change javelins weapon tables by reducing spread from 7 to 5, and increase marksman bonus to minimum 30.

2/ i would give back higher weapon damage to elite infantry units, to allow them to trample low tier units easier.

3/ give massive bigger bonuses to spear units vs cavalry. Cavalry should be instantly butchered vs pike phalanxes or hoplite charges.

4/ buff cavalry speed. Like 2 points more.

I have now great pleasure playing Rome 2 battles. Well done.

[blub19]

@citizen-ychoux

to point 3 the problem is that the engine doesn't care if pike man use pikes or swords, so if you give them this bonus they butcher cavalry that chared them in the rear.

[KAM 2150]

Some remarks :

1/ i would change javelins weapon tables by reducing spread from 7 to 5, and increase marksman bonus to minimum 30.

2/ i would give back higher weapon damage to elite infantry units, to allow them to trample low tier units easier.

3/ give massive bigger bonuses to spear units vs cavalry. Cavalry should be instantly butchered vs pike phalanxes or hoplite charges.

4/ buff cavalry speed. Like 2 points more.

1. Nope, that would change javelins into mass massacre units. Even now they are too strong and your propositon would propably double or nearly double their kill rates.

2. That is is just for test now.

3. AI does not handle that so AI cav attacks spears anyway. Pike phalanx butcheres cav and hoplites too. Pretty much any cav in now butchered in melee combat.

4. Nope, they are veeeery fast now anyway.

[citizen-ychoux]

That would depend.

The kv_rule table sets that the pike phalanx zone is within a max angle of 53° (cosinus 0.6).
Does this mean that the bonuses only apply when the enemy unit is within this angle?

If so, by applying the damage bonus to cavalry to the pike_phalanx in the special_ability_stat_effect, rear cavalry charges wouldn't suffer vs pike phalanxes.
I'll run some tests.

By the way, I just discovered that the deadliness bonus of 2 apply to the hoplite_phalanx, not to the pike_phalanx. I thought the deadliness bonus was supposed to be applied to pikes only. By reading the file, pike phalanx only give 10% attack bonus vs non phalanx, which seems very low. I think this is a mistake, but I can be wrong.

ychoux

[KAM 2150]

It is intended, pike are OP even with this low bonus. Hoplites need that 2 AP or else they will not deal damage due to formation making them a bit too passive.

[citizen-ychoux]

Well my idea does not work. Pike phalanx bonus apply even if attacked from behind.
Crap, it was too simple. I guess there is no working around this issue. Damned.

Any opinion on my other propositions?

ychoux

[BooBooLovesAll]

I am trying to follow the Roman army tactics method with the triple line.

However, my Hastis get slaughtered within a minute or so after charging. My principes relieve them, but they have a hard time fighting as well. Is it supposed to be like this?