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

[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.

[GourmetGorilla]

I'll admit, I was skeptical when I tried this out since I was such a fan of the more drawn-out battles. But after trying it out, and actually losing a battle to the AI, I'm sold. Thank you KAM!

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Was this mod updated since the original post the morning of the 29th?

I am not seeing anything remotely like the more difficult battles that several people in the thread have said.

I am interested in having the battle experience be tougher, but with this mod in, I simply used the same tactics as before in using a strong line of heavy infantry, and focusing on taking out one side, slowly rolling the flank up to defeat the AI.

It took less time because of not all units having encourage, but my casualties sustained and inflicted were not noticeably different than without this mod.

[Aethyr]

Was this mod updated since the original post the morning of the 29th?

I am not seeing anything remotely like the more difficult battles that several people in the thread have said.

I am interested in having the battle experience be tougher, but with this mod in, I simply used the same tactics as before in using a strong line of heavy infantry, and focusing on taking out one side, slowly rolling the flank up to defeat the AI.

It took less time because of not all units having encourage, but my casualties sustained and inflicted were not noticeably different than without this mod.

Try out the Dynamic Battles submod.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

A lot depends on AI units. If your army is already pretty buffed or your units strong enough to hold there for long, then it will be pretty the same. You should feel more difference while fighting more elite enemy armies.

I expected that in the case where I had a Marian army that had been around since Camillian era units, all very experienced and upgraded against some mixed Egyptian troops.

Then I went into custom battles and tried out un upgraded, unexperienced units of my same army against several different enemy types of comparable troops (marian legionnaires against thorax legionnaires/swords/spears) in as balanced a configuration as I could get.

As well as Iberian troops of comparable composition, and some suebia armies of what I figured was the best comparison of era and unit similarity.

In all four cases I lost 500 or less troops, compared to 3500-4000 AI losses.

This is only about 100 more than usual, and I think a lot of it was on approach deaths from slingers. Though in one case I was looking at the other side of the battle and some cavalry got ahold of some of my slingers, resulting in unnecessary deaths on my part.


Is it maybe because I'm specifically fighting what is tantamount to Legionnaires vs imitation legionnaires in these battles that I don't see much of a difference?

It seems rare to actually fight a good, AI built army. They like to use a lot of the cheaper units. And even sticking to historical roman army composition, most cases they are of inferior quality to my legions.
In the cases they do bring elite units, it's mostly one or two, which is insignificant given the even quality of all of my troops compared to their few elites + a bunch of levies.

I could be at fault too however, I stubbornly refuse to play as anyone but Rome for many campaigns and 700+ hours of game play, so it's possible I may have fallen victim to just becoming too experienced and good at one particular thing.

If I were to use an army composition I am unfamiliar with against a superior quality enemy AI force and this submod, it would perhaps actually be difficult.

Try out the Dynamic Battles submod.

I have tried the sub mod, it was not to my taste unfortunately.

I actually like the slow, deliberate battles. They seem far more historical to me, and I enjoy the way they play out.

I just wish they could be both historical AND challenging. That seems to be too much to ask for though...

[Alexandre Lange]

I actually like the slow, deliberate battles. They seem far more historical to me, and I enjoy the way they play out.

I just wish they could be both historical AND challenging. That seems to be too much to ask for though...

I like slower and tactical battles too. But given the BAI Rome 2 present us, to wish battles both historical and challenging is indeed too much to ask. After some time, I realised that what bother me the most are battles without any challenge. So, BDR cames to happen. First as a personal mod, now as something more people can get. If not a good mod by itself, BDR at least put the 'no challenge battles' problem at the screen, and now we are looking for solutions. It's enough to make me satisfied.

[adambomb1]

Aethye, can not find that mod Dynamic battles.

[Alexandre Lange]

Aethye, can not find that mod Dynamic battles.

Battle Dynamics Reworked for DEI

[KAM 2150]

A lot depends on AI units. If your army is already pretty buffed or your units strong enough to hold there for long, then it will be pretty the same. You should feel more difference while fighting more elite enemy armies.

[loony]

units are simply more fragile. i like it.
I also play on VH/H, so winning while outnumbered is tough.

i played a siege yesterday (petrava? near jerusalem). My losses to archers were so large, the result was equal to what autoresolve predicted, i.e. 20% losses.

So the pack is pretty neat.

[Dangerman]

I like the idea of shield defense overall going down but does this affect the likes of Hoplon shields? Those were very tough and very sturdy shields while shields covering a larger surface area like the Scutum would mostly defend against missile fire instead of holding a shield wall.

[KAM 2150]

That is why hoplites get boost from phalanx formation.

[Dangerman]

That is why hoplites get boost from phalanx formation.

Oh yeah I forgot that and I haven't tried this mod yet and I don't have internet at my home until next Thursday (been down since last Thursday). Though wondering one thing KAM, would it ever be possible to have missile-using troops to use enemy thrown missles such as javelins or rocks to "add" to their own ammunition stock. So Javelins can be thrown back by Skirmishers who received it from the enemy?

[Goffredo85]

I am a fan of slower realistic battles, but i have to admit that KAM is right. I think this is a step in the right direction, even tough i am wondering how the numerous bonii to exp we can get everywhere as well as the equipment upgrades can affect this balance. In fact i am starting to think that they should be removed or at least toned down significantly as they screw any attempt to balance things out.

[KAM 2150]

Yeah, I've noticed that too, if I just leave my ranged unit behind, AI ranged units will target them right on and kill most of them if I don't have enough cav to route them quickly.

[Butan]

I've had two battles recently (forgot to screen the battle report).
In the first, I lost terribly against archer heavy AI (I only had javelinmen), who targeted all my ranged then the rest which broke super fast: missile fire + brutal melee = doomed.
In the second (against the same army with a new one) I won a pyrrhic victory by making it so the AI archers targeted my frontline melees, THEN moved out my javelinmen from behind a hill and rushed to firing distance of the AI archers and totally destroyed them with few losses. The following melee battle was pretty harsh (I had very few javelin ammo left) but I managed to win: ranged is very important now.

[McCarronXLD]

I increase the difficulty for myself while still holding onto the very long, historic battles by adjusting the AI's campaign difficulty so that I am always outnumbered in battles. Then that flank you all speak of becomes a much rarer thing.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

I increase the difficulty for myself while still holding onto the very long, historic battles by adjusting the AI's campaign difficulty so that I am always outnumbered in battles. Then that flank you all speak of becomes a much rarer thing.

Even if out numbered, all you have to do in that situation is stretch thin a line of troops that can hold well, and flank with the remaining forces. The only reason flanking should be rare is if you are A: in a city environment or other terrain where the action is either outright impossible, or not viable. or B: You're not handling your forces correctlty.


I've done some more custom battle testing with the mod, playing around with army configurations and my part and the AI (up to and including giving the AI a completely elite army to my more standardized ones).

the highest casualties I've seen on my side have been 571.

A few things I noticed though, cavalry does take quite a few more casualties when pulling back after a charge. So I've begun to be more choosey about where I charge them in, and try to move infantry in to prevent the enemy from making pursing kills on my cavalry as they pull out.

Initial line casualties are about 10-15, but then on my side become minimal. In my last battle with a suebi army consisting of nothing but their most elite and expensive sword units, my marian legionnaires and volunteer legionnaires (4 and 4 + 2 vet legionnaires) took about 10 casualties within the first 30 seconds of combat, and then about another 20 over five minutes of combat.
Some of the barbarian units started wavering at 150 out of 200 units, I assume because of the fact they were surrounded and losing combat. They didn't break for a further 20 casualties though.

That is a change though from enemies not routing until 70 to 50 men remain though, which is nice to see.


Ranged units wise, I had 2 legionnairy javelinmen, 2 merc balerc slingers, and one auxillery archer unit.
The enemy had 2 Germanic youths, 2 longbow hunters, and 2 of their javelin units.

I did not see the ai make use of the javelin units, I think they might have waited for the lines to engage, and then got tangled up in melee.

The slingers and archers fired at my legionnaires, who I put in testudo. Over ten minutes of skirmishing combat (I waited 10 minutes before engaging battle lines, letting all ranged units run out of ammo), one legionnaire group took 1 casualty, and another took 2 casualties. The remaining legionnaires took zero range casualties while in testudo formation.

My baleric slingers routed both of their slingers, and I damaged their archers with my javelin men until running out of javelins, however it was insufficient casualties to break the archers.

They did seem to start focusing on one group of baleric slingers with their own slingers, and that slinger unit was reduced to 103 of 175 men. Casualties on my other ranged units were negligible.

My general, and both legionary cavalry sustained 30 casualties each and inflicted roughly 250 each.


In conclusion, while I am seeing increased casualty figures, the number is not significant, and there isn't an increase in challenge. However, this isn't a bad thing.
While I don't see it as a challenge, I do admit that it is nice to see the enemy being capable of doing more than 200-300 damage to me when fighting in line combat.

Previously I'd win with 200 or less casualties. It might seem odd that I consider a 300 increase in casualties "insignificant" and not a raise in difficulty, but that is because I still have no feeling that I am in danger of losing the battle. Even if I take a small increase in casualties, victory was never in question.


Edit: I remember why I didn't see the ai use their javelin troops, they didn't have any. I gave them 4 slingers and 2 archers to my 2 slingers and 1 archer.
I had routed one slinger group with my cavalry at the start of the battle, but the others were protected by heavy melee infantry, making my cavalry wait until lines were engaged to be used again.