Are battles still grindy?

[Konig91]

Don't get me wrong, I like 15-20 minutes long battles, when there are full stacks involved, but doing the same thing over and over again is cumbersome.

That's the only thing holding me from installing this awesome mod.

[ferike_2007]

Play 1 turn campaign.

[neep]

I haven't played 0- turn myself but other folks comments do suggest that it's much more of grind with more full stack battles per turn.
Even for 1-turn it can certainly be a grind during the battle depending on how you play.

If you just go head to head and slug it out, then it's just a tedious grind.

But, the key is to develop tactics to more efficiently destroy the enemy forces - engage with a few units; flank them with more infantry or even better get a bunch of archers/slingers behind their ranks.
Once weakened and wavering, a few heavy cavalry charges into their backs can also send them routing.
If they have cavalry and archers, then use your own cavalry to sweep them off the field. Archers can do the same if you concentrate their fire and are supported by one or two heavy cavalry.

Depending on the precise mix of your forces and the enemy, you'll have to adjust to the unfolding battle. All part of the fun/challenge/frustration

Edit : Something else I noticed, compared to Vanilla, is the AI develops some really nice attacking strategies as well.
Some factions really make great use of their own cavalry to give me a hard time. Rather than just charge, they develop some good flanking strategies of their own.
Several times I've found myself thinking "Whoah, that was really nicely done. Darn, now I have to try and save myself here."
That's another benefit of allowing the time for these maneuvers to develop.

[here4thehax]

The game is done beautifully,
I'll admit at first I disliked the fact that battles took forever and units didn't route as often. But then I realized that in real life,
battles lasted for days and casualties were most inflicted during the route/retreat rather than the actual battle itself.

Also, the prolonged battles add an amazing amount of strategy if you were really want to kick a**
I personally fix and flank alot. Where my hardened Roman Legionnaires fix the enemy across with a slight curve outwards at the end (like a U shape but much shorter ends obviously)
while my Germanic auxiliary cavalry take out their respective cavalry and come in from behind their main force Hannibal style

[Alavaria]

The way AI behaves is very amusing with a pike-and-spear army (the AI is coded to be very careful with horse around these, if possible... ends up it can't see a safe way and just charges in...).

The presence of really high damage slingers also drives it nuts in some cases.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

The Battles in RSII are the primary reason I love it so - most 'realistic' I have ever seen. Like great tabletop battles, but faster with a PC!

[Starship Trooper]

I've had some absolutely epic battles on RS2 with "unlimited men on battlefield" set to yes. Even though the AI controlling your allied stacks can be incredibly frustrating, I've still never had a game that conveys the grand scale of a big battles better than this one. 20,000 soldiers on the battlefield is just really freakin' cool!

[Kekec]

The battles are too long. It would be interesting if there were thousands of different soldier deaths, and that people fall to the ground and fight, claw, tear each other's eyes out, or thrust a spear through a soldier's mouth, and all those details. But as it is, 2-3 animations, the battles are too long. It's not realistic; it's game breaking.

I can't run Rome 2, and even if I could it is filled with set pieces, which means that while a soldier is performing a set piece, another one cannot, for example, catch him by the shoulders, pull him away and stab him, saving the other soldier. There are no wounds either, only blood on their armour. No soldiers drop their shields or weapons. And when they rout, the whole unit routs, not individual soldiers.

So, RS II is great: I can run it with a lot of units, unit models look great, the campaign map is great and all the buildings are welcome, but the battle (the most important aspect) is ruined. Too bad. You can't ask for realistic length of battles in a GAME, because the actual fighting between soldiers does not play out realistically.

[kyrkac]

do you know how old rtw1 is? what you talking about?

[ur-Lord Tedric]

The battles are too long. ................., the battles are too long. It's not realistic; it's game breaking. ................

You may have seen my post earlier in this thread and I would stick by it until the end.

But I'm genuinely curious as to what the issue is and happy to engage and debate it.

I have been wargaming for over 40 years and, from my point of view, the battles in RSII are the absolute best I have, personally, helped them to be - bar none. They are just about the perfect length (within the 45min timer - which is the original, as designed, RTW maximum length).

That's my view, however - why do you think they are too long? Have you ever studied and appreciated ancient battles? Have you ever trained for and experienced actual war? .....................I have.

[Risasi]

It sounds like what you are describing Kekec, is less "realism" and more thematic movie "schlock".

[Kekec]

It sounds like what you are describing Kekec, is less "realism" and more thematic movie "schlock".

How is people getting wounded and saving each other less realistic than staring into each other and swinging occasionally, and not killing the enemy when their backs are turned or having hundreds upon hundreds of projectiles hurled at a unit and result in 1-2 deaths?

I think modern day group fist-fights are the closest we can get to the realism of those battles, and they're not movie schlock, but careful and calculated and the fighters have each other's backs.

Maybe you love this mod to death, but that's no reason the skew facts.

[dvk901]

How is people getting wounded and saving each other less realistic than staring into each other and swinging occasionally, and not killing the enemy when their backs are turned or having hundreds upon hundreds of projectiles hurled at a unit and result in 1-2 deaths?

I think modern day group fist-fights are the closest we can get to the realism of those battles, and they're not movie schlock, but careful and calculated and the fighters have each other's backs.

Maybe you love this mod to death, but that's no reason the skew facts.

It is true that a lot of the realistic things that 'would' happen in a battle, do not. But then, one wonders if it would be a matter to criticize if they actually were there. People could say, "What's with all the detailed screaming, ducking, grabbing, poking or whatever...it has little to do with the overall strategy of a battle. RTW1 certainly focuses more on the strategy of battles, than on every little detail. Rome2 concentrates on many of the details of battles, and people slam it because the strategy is ridiculous and mostly missing (blob battles). So it's really a matter of preference and what one likes to see in battles.

Personally, I find battles far more satisfying in almost ANY RTW1 mod because I prefer the strategy part of battles. Whereas, in Rome2, my impressions have been that it's almost impossible..or at least for me, very difficult, to figure out HOW to have a strategy in a battle. It's hard enough to figure out what units are doing in the first place, and where they are...let alone use them in a strategic fashion.

Let me also say that RS2 was written and created by a bunch of fairly 'seasoned' veterans of RTW and its mods. Our INTENTION was to make this mod more difficult, more challenging, and more of a grind...really, in order to win a campaign. It isn't meant for the player who just wants to boot up the game and smash the map out in a couple of nights or days. Ain't gonna happen......and for us, this had gotten boring. So RS2 was written for a patient player I suppose, who wants to build an empire over time, and doesn't mind fighting for it.

Still, the battles can get grinding. But as has been said, good tactics in battles can easily shorten them. At first, I too was a bit annoyed with how hard battles were in RS2. But it grew on me as I felt more a sense of accomplishment in these battles, rather than the same old 'ho-hum, the AI was stupid again' and I walked all over it.

As for the so-called 'ineffectiveness' of missile units...again, at first I thought the same thing. (I didn't do the stats by the way.) But I have seen many mods where a barrage of missiles wiped out nearly half a unit, and the unit would often waiver and route. This tends to make battles too easy, because you have first of all, and unrealistic number of men in units, and second, only a limited number of ways to adjust the behavior and strengths of units. You have to have a good balance...otherwise, it's too easy. Then it really gets boring. So I think the missile units are 'close' to about right. They could be slightly more effective (IMHO), but not much.

[Alavaria]

Still, the battles can get grinding. But as has been said, good tactics in battles can easily shorten them. At first, I too was a bit annoyed with how hard battles were in RS2. But it grew on me as I felt more a sense of accomplishment in these battles, rather than the same old 'ho-hum, the AI was stupid again' and I walked all over it.

As for the so-called 'ineffectiveness' of missile units...again, at first I thought the same thing. (I didn't do the stats by the way.) But I have seen many mods where a barrage of missiles wiped out nearly half a unit, and the unit would often waiver and route. This tends to make battles too easy, because you have first of all, and unrealistic number of men in units, and second, only a limited number of ways to adjust the behavior and strengths of units. You have to have a good balance...otherwise, it's too easy. Then it really gets boring. So I think the missile units are 'close' to about right. They could be slightly more effective (IMHO), but not much.

At this point the AI's various fancy tactics are pretty ho-hum once you get down the way to use ranged units. Like I talk a lot about pikes as well, but that's because non-phalanx formation units are much worse at holding than phalanx formation units. With ranged units you have many options (though I like the slinger best).

The properties of ranged attacks (ignore defense skill, can be employed to consistently avoid shield defenses) make them very powerful. However, compounding that is the way ranged attacking is modelled in the engine (everyone in a unit can shoot through anyone else in the same unit). Only cavalry (medium or above) on the charge is more powerful, but you'll find that to some extent the engine but also RS2 stats punishes overreliance on charging. Not to mention some things (pikes especially) can be very dangerous to charge almost no matter what thanks to some modelling decisions (you lose a ton on charge, also magical pikemen turning around and piking in melee etc etc).


It's very very very much grindy if you rely on stabbing people in the face repeatedly (like some people with little swords tend to do). Ironically this amplifies ranged/horse charge tactics as it allows you to very efficiently make use of specialized killing units.

[Grimbold]

If you wan't 5 minute battles then install the submods for it or play another mod. A battle lasting 5 mins is beyond ridiculous. What you're asking for is basically setting up your army, march it up to the enemy and hack and slash away, when, in truth, a battle is much more than that.

If you want a shorter battle and - supposedly cheat - lure the enemy general away and kill him off.

[DeathtoEgo]

If the idea of playing large battles over and over again is cumbersome, then why are you playing Total War? RS2 is just a grander vanilla, albeit more pretty, more factions, more settlements, more units, more buildings, more trait/ancillaries, more scripting, more everything, so naturally there will be more battles.

[Grimbold]

If you think battles are grindy, try going up agaisnt roman legions. Even when you cut off the head, those dogs will still fight to the end.

[MacBlain]

I'm playing Galatia, and now that the Successors have got it in their heads that I need to die, Anatolia is now crowded with good-quality phalanxes. I'm finding that even my best offensive melee infantry can't inflict useful numbers of casualties under any circumstances, and the enemy just never routs, even with careful application of naked fanatics. It looks like there is absolutely nothing I can do but pin them and envelop with slingers. Otherwise it's just a horrendous neverending battle of attrition. And when those hybrid mobile hoplites are covering the flanks? It's interminable. Nothing routs them, and nothing kills them but sling stones in the back.

[Alavaria]

I'm playing Galatia, and now that the Successors have got it in their heads that I need to die, Anatolia is now crowded with good-quality phalanxes. I'm finding that even my best offensive melee infantry can't inflict useful numbers of casualties under any circumstances, and the enemy just never routs, even with careful application of naked fanatics. It looks like there is absolutely nothing I can do but pin them and envelop with slingers. Otherwise it's just a horrendous neverending battle of attrition. And when those hybrid mobile hoplites are covering the flanks? It's interminable. Nothing routs them, and nothing kills them but sling stones in the back.

Funny that I use that exact same composition. Except as I'm not an AI, my pikes/hoplites don't kill anything so I am using slingers (like you are).

AI-led pikemen are of course hediously vulnerable to shots in the back. Unlike other unit types, pikes/hoplites are also pretty good against even cavalry charges (especially the pikemen)


"good-quality phalanxes" have pretty decent statistics as swordsmen. And phalanx formation helps them in various ways as well that may be less obvious.

I think the AI is actually a bit better at tactics than actual Successor states were.

[MacBlain]

I think the AI is actually a bit better at tactics than actual Successor states were.

Hah! So true! I've always thought that the real problem with this game is not that the AI is bad, but that the player has a level of command control that would make the SAS blush.

Mr Monk, thank you for your thoughtful reply! What I meant is that I have attacked the enemy phalanxes from the rear and while they are tired with the highest-quality, freshest units of chosen swordsmen and naked fanatics, and still I cause very few casualties. I think for the current leg of my campaign all I will need to build is a glut of low and medium-quality spearmen and lots of cheap slingers, and I suppose just enough cavalry to control the field. It's a bit disappointing that I'm going to be forced to rely on such an uninteresting and simplistic tactic, but this is the worst case of "grindyness" that I've encountered so far in RS 2.6, and even then it's not game-ruining.