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

[Zonac]

Hey just some impressions while checking stats in custom battle: it seems that you also changed weapon damage for cav. that is no problem for me but you should check the stats for missile cav in general. they didn't change and are of the record. also one iberian cav unit (equites craetati) got again 17 weapon damage ( like pre 1.02) . also armenian cataphrakts have quite high melee def compared to other cav. also you didn't change the "mighty knights" of celts (mogeto epathias). also check dacian melle cav/missile weapon damage!
some britain units are also of ( slingers, cav); lugii elite cav; antigonidai shock cav has quite high def!;

Edit: I come to the result that you may chack all cavalry and 2 handed melee infantry again please?! I just want to test this at its fullest potential!
(propably give only druids enchorage for the while "so that it functions as a "chant" ability ")

and may I ask to give melee cav more melee def than shock cav?! so that they survive longer? that would be awesome!

I really appreciate that you are constantly trieing to tweak the system to get the fullest from the BAI CA gave us

[KAM 2150]

Some cav units are using the same weapons as infantry, forgot to change that as it did not matter for regular DeI balance ; P

Non shielded cav has more def, because in base they did not have any shield bonus so I gave them bigger base melee defence, but not it looks like they have more def ; D

EDIT: Forgot to add that non spear/lance cav does not get bonus vs other horses, so their higher damage is justified as they also lack the charge of spear/lance cav

[rjacko10]

It's great to see you are tirelessly working on this. I for one am really interested in faster battles to make the experience harder. However I realise a lot of people like the current set up.

- shield defence lowered a lot, but armour bonus is the same

But it is only lower melee defence.... ; P Like I wrote, shield armour is the same.

I'm a bit confused by these.. I didn't realise there was shield defence and melee defence.

I've been a bit frustrated with skirmishers in the normal DEI battle system. The accuracy is incredibly poor even at incredibly close range. I end up killing half my units even when my skirmishers are right behind the enemy with a clear aim at their backs. Skirmishers are only useful for targeting units which aren't engaged, which only happens at the start, against other skirmishers and then if the lines start breaking at the end of the battle. For most of the battles my skirmishers are useless and I just leave them standing around. This is a real shame because it takes away a large element of tactics.

Please can you consider this going forwards

[KAM 2150]

Just hover over defence value on the UI and it will expand into base defence and shield defence, that is why I put a lot of shield defence into 1.0 battles so while flanked, unit only had their low base defence.

[Krixux]

strange...
tbo my 3 Accensi slingers (not Rhodian) end up, with an average of 300 to 400 kills (large units , hastati 150 / unit for ex)

a normal battle
me +/- 2400 men in one Legion (Rome)
Enemy (AI) +/-3600 in one (single) army , (Norii for instance)
results:
my losses +/- 500; kills +/-3000
Their kills +/- 420; losses +/- 3000 (lol)
decisive victory = "Ego"

conclusion
I loose only 80 to 100 friendly fire, which is ok

in my case friendly fire is due to hastaii / principes fire at will

my ranged are behind enemy's' line in almost lap-dance distance so there is no way they can shoot (lol) over into my frontline...
my ranged units do not fire at will, and fire specific enemy units from a mild right angle to negate their shield, so hits fall on their "sword" hand/back side (quick annihilation), and if misfired (again lol) then in my front lines' shields...

[KAM 2150]

Looks liek I will have to tone down sligners a bit more Although with surrounding enemy units and fireing in their backs it will always be like this, no matter if in regular DeI or on faster battles. Main problem with balancing ranged units is that AI will NEVER position his troops on the flanks, so if missile units are to weak, then AI will just waste army slots, since their units will be able to kill 2-5 guys per squad if lucky. When we increase ranged damage, then they are able to deal some more damage to the player, but for player both cases does not matter, as he will always flank with missile units.

In other words, there is no perfect solution for ranged units.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Well, I tried a few battles with this, and can't really tell much difference. The battles ended on average about five minutes more quickly than without it, but casualty numbers, and over all battlefield feel don't seem changed at all.

I think the only real thing that was notable is the battle ended 5 minutes early because of the lack of every unit having encourage resulting in less morale and faster breaking.

[Richard III]

I'd be willing to test this in my currentcampaign, but would like to know if I can play it with these mods already in use:

-Global Armor upgrades
-Minor City Training Fielsds
-Restricted Campaign Movement
-Stop Barbarian Empires

I think they'll be ok as my mods are Campaign and not battle focused, but still would like to know for sure!

[rjacko10]

conclusion
I loose only 80 to 100 friendly fire, which is ok

Even positioned right behind the enemy unit my peltasts have been known to route my own unit which should have shield protection.

I typically lose about 400 men to friendly fire if I target engaged units. These are unacceptable casualties so I simply stopped using skirmishers on engaged units.

I would like a little less spread in accuracy so shots don't miss their mark at point blank range. Orr manual fire for all skirmishers so I can target the ground the other side of the engaged units.

[KAM 2150]

Wow, are you sure you are not using any other mods? Your casualties seem almost impossible to get. 80 guys from friendly fire due to pila thrown into fighting troops was max, but my pelstats were always shovering enemies even from behind of my own troops.

Richard III, as long as they do not use the same tables then they should be fine. I never used those so I don't know which tables they use.

[KAM 2150]

Ok, now I know why there isn't that much difference in kills sustained Anyway, new version will be posted tomorrow in the evening or late at night.

[nihlanth]

This sounds very interesting. I wont mind slightly faster battles as long as it results in the BAI being more responsive to my actions. I will give this a try.

[rjacko10]

Wow, are you sure you are not using any other mods? Your casualties seem almost impossible to get.

No other mods that affect battles in any way. Next time I play I'll take screenshots and post them up in a new thread.

Maybe it's a specific unit problem, or something I'm doing wrong tactically.

[McCarronXLD]

While I appreciate the dedicated work for balance I will have to say I think this is moving the mod in the wrong direction. I prefer slower battles, longer battles, with low casualties. The old Ancient Battle Realism submod did an excellent job of turning battles into campaigns. I would plead with you to consider ranged units for a different role than killing. In the Ancient Battle Realism submod ranged casualties inflicted were very, very low. Decisive action was required to win and morale was the key to maintaining your battle lines. Ranged units, rather than having high killing power, would give debuffs to units they were attacking. Morale and speed penalties. While the mod did not do this I further changed it so that ammunition was infinite (or nearly so) on ranged units so that their role was always available to them. The exception was javelins which still had a high killing power.

Perhaps consider doing this for DeI. You might find it more satisfying than making ranged units into something they shouldn't be just because the AI can't protect them for the full battle.

[KAM 2150]

Yes, but still longer battles = easier battles, and even in current build of DeI they are ridiculously easy.

Plus as stated, this one is not going into main mod and if then in rather distant future.

[Ritterlichvon86]

Longer battles are indeed leading to easier battles, because the AI is a first-five-minute-one-trick-pony. And the more advantage a player gets by flanking, the easier the battle will become.

McCarronXLD, while your idea sounds noble, this is not how the BAI works. It doesn't adapt to slower, more realistic battles that are based on solely gaining the upper hand just by flanking or by morale. The BAI relies on its quick killing power - frontally - to become a challenge, to reach the unit-per-unit descision quickly enough to have an advantage over the average player's micro. Whether a battle ends with many or few casualties bears no relevance to this if you are not specifically talking about a losing AI, which usually ends in 4000 kills by the player and 300-400 kills by the AI in DeI at the moment. I believe KAM is moving into the right direction, and if you want to have super-realistic battles, you can go into submods (with a disclaimer slapped upon them that the BAI might perform passively after the lines have engaged). Also, even with these fixes here, DeI battles still take many times as long as Vanilla R2 battles and feature some of the longest engagements among the very big mods in the modding scene.


By the way, in Attila battles are probably two to three times as quick as in Rome 2. Basically, dedicating a unit to fight another at t=0 is the deciding factor wether it will win or be destroyed in Attila. So it is far worse than even in R2...

[MagicCuboid]

I'm definitely intrigued, KAM, though I think you could sell a cage to a lion with your arguments! I am hugely in favor of historical accuracy and "feeling", but I think enough is enough after I see the AI dogpile onto my center line for the last time. If this mod will force me to think about unit angle/position and pre-battle formation more than I currently do, then I am a happy camper. As a matter of fact, if this mod increases the ability for infantry to win a battle all on their own, I'm a happy camper. I'm tired of Roman Equites acting like Medieval Knights.

Alas, I'll keep dreaming of a Total War in which we can require tactical withdrawals, complex anti-flanking maneuvers, etc... Let's keep hoping. I think removing the nuance of combat mechanics is the only way the AI can really excel, which is something I don't really want to happen tbh. However there is a mod for Shogun 2 which inspired the AI to counter flanking maneuvers on my PC. This is because there are two types of infantry: Samurai and Ashigaru. The Samurai fight other infantry, the Ashigaru block for missiles/attack cavalry, the missiles attack everyone else. It was simple, yet very fun, and the AI tended to know how to fight.

[zonks40]

Never been a fan of the slow battles, as people have said, it gives the player far too much time to flank, and the AI is to stupid to react, we have been using a modified version of DEI for some time now, doubled all the weapon damage, removed the AP damage from missiles and added it to the base damage, heavily armored units take far less casualties to missiles than men with no armor.

It works quite well, the battles are usually from 12-15 minutes, elite units can punch through the lines of low quality units, often taking away the opportunity for the player to flank and actually making the player react to the AI.
We have also reduced the flank attack morale penalty, far too many times I see units with the "Attacked in the flank" when they are not being attacked in the flank, also increased the walk speed and fatigue thresholds, no fun sitting around for 5 minutes waiting to get to the enemy, or watching the AI exhaust themselves getting to my lines by running across the map.

We have also given the AI very large income bonuses, and find that the AI field far better units mid game, the income does not cause army spam because they are limited by Imperium, and we also use Teukros's Sub mod that enables very hard campaign with normal battles for multiplayer.

I am considering removing the armor bonus from shields and returning the damage to the original values, shields should not add to the armor of a unit, the shield is used for melee defense and blocking missiles, as they are now, they have a chance to block a melee attack or block a missile, then when they fail to do this, they aid in further blocking the melee attack or missile by increasing the overall armor value of the unit, it's double dipping.

[rezoacken]

I like the slower pace of DEI compared to vanilla but frontal and range combat is way too slow for the AI to handle. The current DEI battle is mostly won through flanks. While this is realist and should still be the case the AI cannot handle it and most battles turn into: Let's pin down the AI with frontal combat while I encircle them and lose only a tenth of their guys. Everytime.

So I encourage this submod or whatever it's going to be.

[ThatWhichThinks]

I just gave it a quick run with 10 turns or so as Lusitani.

Aside from slingers being super-powerful machineguns (a problem that was mentioned earlier in the thread) I think everything is working as described and is making battles a bit tougher.

Honestly, if I were to change anything it would be to make infantry melee kill rates slightly higher still to keep pace with ranged units. I also like the suggestion that zonks made about shields adding only to defense skill rather than armor.

The only really odd thing I noticed was that my Lusitanian bodyguards (Very Heavy Melee Cav) managed to flank some Arevaci cav (Very Heavy shock cav, can't recall the name) and absolutely destroyed them in a matter of seconds. I know shock cav are vulnerable to flanking and that melee cav should beat shock cav in a prolonged melee, but don't shock cav get some bonus vs cavalry? It just seemed odd that my cav slaughtered and routed the enemy elite shock cav in just a few seconds.