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

[geala]

It is save game compatible. I also had trouble to download it. I succeeded by right clicking on "Slow Download" and choosing "Open Link" at the top of the popped up window.

If 45% disbanding applies only to the loser I'm fine with it. BTW it's only one number and can be easily changed by everybody if he doesn't like it.

If missile damage stays so high I would have problems using the mod. A certain rest of realism should be mandatory. Look at the ratio of missile troops in armies of the Hellenistic period and ask yourself why it was so low. I guess not because missiles were machine gun like killers. Perhaps make two versions, one for the strong and one for the weak (like me)? Or at least tell us in what files the missile changes are (only Projectiles_tables or also others?).

@ KAM 2150 a personal remark as someone who isn't a fan of beards: finally your avatar found a kind of shaving device (even if unsatisfactory). So sweet.

[FlashHeart07]

If you wanted to change the dmg of missile units you can just change the dmg of each weapon type.

[geala]

With weapon damage you mean projectile damage, ruled by the Projectiles_tables?

[FlashHeart07]

With weapon damage you mean projectile damage, ruled by the Projectiles_tables?

Maybe. Cant remember and not able to check until later

[meerkatology]

how do these not result in significantly faster battles?

[Butan]

It doesnt for you?

Maybe not significantly, but I see an average of 20% shorter battles approx.

[RollingWave]

This doesn't seem to be save competiable is it? at least when I tried it with my existing Saka campaign I don't notice the 45% disband thing.

[Zonac]

ctrl + m It would be awesome if replenishment would be gone and instead of it all unit do auto merge after each battle. (should also affect the AI of course ). But I do not know where you can change something that forces you and the AI to automerge units. Maybe we should ask CA to answer this question?

[Krixux]

I have this idea that "threat detection" and "threat response" has to do with BAI more than stats alone

1st
at one point the AI unit will "detect" your/our units but (perhaps) is limited by his "area" of detection
hence it doesn't perceive player's (far) flank or reserve as an immediate threat
thus it easy for us to envelop and kill

there has to be a "stat" that regulate this value= triple it (!)

2nd
"threat response" and/or "threat priority"

ex now:
AI cav is attacking my flank ignoring my flank reserve

solution
AI spear unit (high) priority (priorities) = player Cav 1st, and all other 2nd (much lower priority)
AI missiles unit priority = missiles 1st, elite 2nd, Cav 3rd , etc (further study of better use for AI missiles units...)
AI heavy sword priority = player sword inf 1st , and really low all other
AI Cav priority = player missiles (at max priority) then sword , elite etc,
AI Cav lowest priority = player spears...

this also has to be found as a "stat" somewhere...(I hope)



I'll be looking for this on my own , but perhaps (if it is something ) more eyes are much much better (lol)

So, what you guys think ?

edit:

found:
-land_units_tables

spot_dist_tree
spot_dist_scrub
visibility_spotting_range_max
?

[KAM 2150]

Even when you play on closer deployment mod where both armies see eachother from the start AI is not any better.

I have no idea how AI is calculation those threat stuff, but if it would be in the files I am almost sure that Gunny/Magnar/Jam would have found it long time ago.

[Krixux]

Even when you play on closer deployment mod where both armies see eachother from the start AI is not any better.

I have no idea how AI is calculation those threat stuff, but if it would be in the files I am almost sure that Gunny/Magnar/Jam would have found it long time ago.

I just started to triple the values for:

"spot_dist_tree"
"spot_dist_scrub"
i'll see how it goes
(it will take awhile lol 1500 units ??)

edit:

I kind of believe that:
visibility_spotting _range _minimum

represent the distance of nearest threat

the values in DeI are identical for those in data_rome2
land_units_tables in DeI has a ton of other changes , but not this

ex
triarii (both DeI and data_rome2:
visibility_spotting _range _minimum = 40
(max = 1500)
tree =40
scrub = 100
where 40 = immediate threat (imo ???)

since those values are the same ( thus untouched) in DeI
i'll chance them (x3) and see how it goes...

[Krixux]

I just started to triple the values for:

"spot_dist_tree"
"spot_dist_scrub"
i'll see how it goes
(it will take awhile lol 1500 units ??)

edit:

I kind of believe that:
visibility_spotting _range _minimum

represent the distance of nearest threat

the values in DeI are identical for those in data_rome2
land_units_tables in DeI has a ton of other changes , but not this

ex
triarii (both DeI and data_rome2:
visibility_spotting _range _minimum = 40
(max = 1500)
tree =40
scrub = 100
where 40 = immediate threat (imo ???)

since those values are the same ( thus untouched) in DeI
i'll chance them (x3) and see how it goes...

@KAM2150

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

in Rome_land_units

I changed all units:

visibility_spotting _range _minimum
to 120

and
tree = 100
scrub = 150

played custom battle
rome vs rome
with both
2 equites_late_allaied
3 accensi
4 hastatii (those not modded thus)

the AI reacted from afar countering my flanking maneuvers (!)
with one accensi and one socii equites (!)
the AI hastatii (un changed) engaged my front line = all hastatii engaged (predictable since they were not changed)

My cav couldn't flank (!!!) due to AI Cav countering my every move !

KAM
change the values

visibility_spotting _range _minimum = 100
tree = 100
scrub = 150

and test for your self
(or give more 200/ 200/ 300) ?

I plan giving greater values myself
there is really something here !!!!

[krunsh]

there is really something here !!!!

Nice. Now hoping no one comes up saying ''tried this, it breaks THIS, THIS AND THIS!..''

Either way, thanks a bunch for spending time on this! Does it cause the AI to do less of the ''Three units charging the same hoplite squad and all getting tired while not benefiting from the number due to being all jammed up togheter'' ?

[Ritterlichvon86]

Nice. Now hoping no one comes up saying ''tried this, it breaks THIS, THIS AND THIS!..''

Either way, thanks a bunch for spending time on this! Does it cause the AI to do less of the ''Three units charging the same hoplite squad and all getting tired while not benefiting from the number due to being all jammed up togheter'' ?

I will try this tomorrow and I will break this.

Krixux, can you upload a pack with the changes?

Anyway, if this truely brings advantages to how effectively the AI reacts (of what the chance is high in its current state), then this would be awesome. But if it nerfs unit stealth / forests / etc., then I assume it would be something you could put into a submod only. Anyway. Really interested.

[jukebox9]

I just started to triple the values for:

"spot_dist_tree"
"spot_dist_scrub"
i'll see how it goes
(it will take awhile lol 1500 units ??)

edit:

I kind of believe that:
visibility_spotting _range _minimum

represent the distance of nearest threat

the values in DeI are identical for those in data_rome2
land_units_tables in DeI has a ton of other changes , but not this

ex
triarii (both DeI and data_rome2:
visibility_spotting _range _minimum = 40
(max = 1500)
tree =40
scrub = 100
where 40 = immediate threat (imo ???)

since those values are the same ( thus untouched) in DeI
i'll chance them (x3) and see how it goes...

Interesting experiments. If I had to guess, I'd say that tree/scrub=xxx is the value for spotting troops "hiding" in trees or scrubs. So perhaps upping the min visibility range but keeping the tree/scrub range lower may address some of the issues people are raising about potentially harming the "hidden" piece of the game. Anyhow, interested in seeing how this turns out.

[Ritterlichvon86]

It has been present since Rome 1 in all total war games! )

[krunsh]

I think it would be great if instead of dying below 45%. Units with less than 45% manpower would not show up in battle until they have regained enough strength, and would die along with the army if it is defeated. Probably cannot be done though.

Also, do people take the time to pursue and destroy routed units after a fight? It kinda breaks the balance since AI does not... But at the same time, pursuing a weak AI army all over the campaign map is so annoying. I guess the whole dying at below 45% might alleviate this pain a little, and promote the use of AoR units.

[MagicCuboid]

Wow Krixux, am I witnessing a massive shift here? I wish I was available today to try these values myself, but rest assured I will try it out tomorrow and give a report! +rep for new ideas

[rjacko10]

Krixux - nice work. Does these values mean hiding in scrub and forests no longer work?

[RollingWave]

hmmm I tried restarting a game with Arveni but I don't seem to see the 45% disband effect.

(granted it's been a tough as hell campaign as I already lost as many generals as I've taken settlements heh.)