Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Lusitanio]

I really dislike any use of scripting to create armies out of nothing for the AI, especially for gameplay purposes. I am ok with it if it is used to represent some historical situation that the AI cannot recreate (like the ptolemies protecting Sinope or the kingship of macedonia).

I dislike it too. What I'm proposing is to represent what happened in history. For example, after conquering Messana, a Roman army would appear nearby and attack the city to represent the Romans coming to help the city.

And the one spamming in Africa intends to represent Regulus invasion of Africa in the First Punic War.

[Kull]

All I suggested is that the team takes the 5 units from the city garrison and redistribute them among the 2 roaming armies. That way, the two roaming armies will have more units and Syracuse will still have a complete garrison of 20 units when the garrison script kicks in. I'm saying this because Syracuse is a very early target for Rome and Carthage players - it's a shame to waste the garrison script.

Not trying to be semantic, but the garrison script is only able to "fill it up". There's no code i'm aware of which says, "take excess units from the garrison script and place them inside existing rover stacks, wherever they happen to have wandered off too at that particular moment". You would need a separate script that spawns a completely different rover stack based on some criteria such as "city under siege".

[Kilo11]

I think the idea was to have the descr_strat be edited so that at campaign start the 5 "extra" units in Syracuse are instead in the Syrakousai armies roving about, since when the garrison script kicks in it will add 10 units to the city anyway. That way there are more Syrakousai units to fend off the Romans/Carthaginians.

[Rad]

Not trying to be semantic, but the garrison script is only able to "fill it up". There's no code i'm aware of which says, "take excess units from the garrison script and place them inside existing rover stacks, wherever they happen to have wandered off too at that particular moment". You would need a separate script that spawns a completely different rover stack based on some criteria such as "city under siege".

There's really not much braining around here - one just redistributes 5 units from the city to the roving AI armies.

[Rad]

I think the idea was to have the descr_strat be edited so that at campaign start the 5 "extra" units in Syracuse are instead in the Syrakousai armies roving about, since when the garrison script kicks in it will add 10 units to the city anyway. That way there are more Syrakousai units to fend off the Romans/Carthaginians.

You get it.

[Kull]

There's really not much braining around here - one just redistributes 5 units from the city to the roving AI armies.

There's more "braining" than you might think. The law of unintended consequences says that a half-size city garrison could lead to other things, such as a depleted rover stack full of half size or less units (following several battles with Carthage or others) taking refuge inside the walls (meaning the garrison script does nothing at all) or the city itself being seen as a weaker target and thus triggering even earlier assaults from AI factions.

In other words, you'd need to playtest it very extensively to make sure you're getting exactly the results you want. Feel free to run 8-10 50-turn playtests (that's my standard) to see what happens and then let us know. And no, i'm not being facetious. I'm still seeing rebel armies in my sleep after weeks of testing their new recruitment ability.

[Rad]

Yes you are. Redistribute five units on an island = stronger mobile defenses, while still maintaining a full garrison when the script kicks in.
Syracuse is a very early target for both Carthage and Rome players - it's rich and it's close. It's highly unlikely that the situation you are describing will happen before the player obliterates them entirely.
Rebel recruitment works fine. On two occassions, I was attacked by a combined force of the city I was sieging and the nearby rover army (very poor scouting on my part). I managed to beat them and both the defenders and the rovers were completely destroyed. Not wanting to be that guy, I didn't take the empty cities. They recruited fresh troops as soon as it was the rebel turn

[QuintusSertorius]

Not technically possible to spawn units in stacks near settlements without knowing their names (or labels) in advance of the act.

So that means either hoping the starting stacks are still present at the time the garrison script would be triggered, or guessing at the name of the spawn what they might be called. Whereas adding units to settlements requires only the name of the settlement.

[Kull]

Yes you are. Redistribute five units on an island = stronger mobile defenses, while still maintaining a full garrison when the script kicks in.
Syracuse is a very early target for both Carthage and Rome players - it's rich and it's close. It's highly unlikely that the situation you are describing will happen before the player obliterates them entirely.
Rebel recruitment works fine. On two occassions, I was attacked by a combined force of the city I was sieging and the nearby rover army (very poor scouting on my part). I managed to beat them and both the defenders and the rovers were completely destroyed. Not wanting to be that guy, I didn't take the empty cities. They recruited fresh troops as soon as it was the rebel turn

I'll just note that we don't make changes without testing them. If you aren't willing to do that, then fine.

[Rad]

I'll just note that we don't make changes without testing them. If you aren't willing to do that, then fine.

I am testing the game, every day now

[isa0005]

So one thing that I have always been intrigued about the Roman Republic, is the fact that armed soldiers were forbidden from entering Rome in an effort to protect the Republic from the military. With that in mind, I was thinking it would be cool, if perhaps there could be a fort built near Rome that could allow the player to simulate this. I was also thinking that this fort could also offer some interesting mechanics as well. For example if generals were placed in the fort, they might receive special military based traits. This fort could also be tied to the military triumph mechanic, so that your generals could have a place to go (instead of just sitting outside Rome or in a city near by) where they could perhaps get special randomised scripted events occur. Of course there would have to be a public order malus implemented somehow to reflect the Senates dissatisfaction, as well as negative traits applied to General who brought their armies to Rome. With that in mind, perhaps this could also play a role in establishing the Principate/Empire in some way as well. There could be all sorts of mechanics applied to this to add some more flavour to Roman game play

[Genghis Skahn]

So one thing that I have always been intrigued about the Roman Republic, is the fact that armed soldiers were forbidden from entering Rome in an effort to protect the Republic from the military. With that in mind, I was thinking it would be cool, if perhaps there could be a fort built near Rome that could allow the player to simulate this. I was also thinking that this fort could also offer some interesting mechanics as well. For example if generals were placed in the fort, they might receive special military based traits. This fort could also be tied to the military triumph mechanic, so that your generals could have a place to go (instead of just sitting outside Rome or in a city near by) where they could perhaps get special randomised scripted events occur. Of course there would have to be a public order malus implemented somehow to reflect the Senates dissatisfaction, as well as negative traits applied to General who brought their armies to Rome. With that in mind, perhaps this could also play a role in establishing the Principate/Empire in some way as well. There could be all sorts of mechanics applied to this to add some more flavour to Roman game play

I'm pretty sure that we can't test in the EDCT whether someone is inside a fort or not, so the idea for the fort-based trait mechanics seems like a no-go.

[QuintusSertorius]

And at the risk of being a cold shower, every fort suffers the same CAI issues - you'd end up with AI Rome leaving Roma undefended, while piling troops into the "Campus Martius" fort next door, and ignoring attacks on their capital.

[Kilo11]

I'm pretty sure that we can't test in the EDCT whether someone is inside a fort or not, so the idea for the fort-based trait mechanics seems like a no-go.

I second this. In hunting through all the triggers and test conditions, I don't recall ever seeing a single mention of forts. I don't think that can be done. It could be done to have a trigger for being in the territory of Latium but not in Roma (I think; correct me if I'm wrong Genghis), but to have it specifically refer to a fixed fort on the campaign map is not possible.

And at the risk of being a cold shower, every fort suffers the same CAI issues - you'd end up with AI Rome leaving Roma undefended, while piling troops into the "Campus Martius" fort next door, and ignoring attacks on their capital.

I have been wondering about this QS. Is it really a "problem", or is it merely a possible exploit for the player? I mean, the issue is that for some reason the CAI puts massive priority on forts, right? That means they'll stock it with troops while ignoring the defense of the town right next door. But the CAI for other factions will put equally irrational priority on the fort too, right? So then the AI factions will just be duking it out over the fort rather than the town. It's sort of stupid and odd, but doesn't seem like it would really "break" anything, because it won't mean the underdefended city falls easily, due to the fact that the AI will target the fort first. Then it only really presents an exploit for the human player to use or ignore, as they see fit, because they could leave the fort and take the undefended town, or play "fairly" and hit the fort first. Have I understood that right?

[Kull]

I have been wondering about this QS. Is it really a "problem", or is it merely a possible exploit for the player? I mean, the issue is that for some reason the CAI puts massive priority on forts, right? That means they'll stock it with troops while ignoring the defense of the town right next door. But the CAI for other factions will put equally irrational priority on the fort too, right? So then the AI factions will just be duking it out over the fort rather than the town. It's sort of stupid and odd, but doesn't seem like it would really "break" anything, because it won't mean the underdefended city falls easily, due to the fact that the AI will target the fort first. Then it only really presents an exploit for the human player to use or ignore, as they see fit, because they could leave the fort and take the undefended town, or play "fairly" and hit the fort first. Have I understood that right?

Actually it's the worst of all possible worlds. The faction which owns the province will stock it's own fort with units, while the attacking factions completely ignore them. That said, we do have a very small number of forts on the map (a necessary component of the "Visible Wonders") and the AI seems to ignore them completely (both in defense and attack). Not really sure why, but there's no doubt that when we had lots of forts it essentially destroyed the AI's ability to defend itself. They definitely won't be coming back.

[Wulfburk]

Besides the fort battles are meh in every total war game, and it lessens the ammount of open field battles.

[isa0005]

Fair enough
It was just a thought, glad it stimulated some conversation though

[Sar1n]

The formations of skirmishers are, honestly, quite a mess right now. Some have tighter formations, some don't, but there's no sense in it...why should light assault infantry like Peltenai have loose formation while literally almost naked guys with small shield, few javelins and spear have tight formation, and so on.

So, I propose standartization in this regard. Skirmishers who should avoid melee at all cost, like Akontistai, Leves etc..., should keep loose-1.8 spacing all around for both loose and tight. Offensive skirmishers, like Peltenai, Komatai, Saeraeghwaekha (Maiotian swordsmen), Lancetai and so on , who usually are impetuous, should get "roman style" infantry formation-1.8 0.9 1.8 1.8, which means tight formation 0.9 between files, 1.8 between ranks, 1.8 for ranks and files on loose. Defensive skirmishers, like Toxotai Kretikoi or Promachoi should get regular spearmen formation-0.9 0.9 1.8 1.8.

I don't have the time to write up a full list right now, since it affects probably well over hundred units, but I think such system is good enough to be applied and used for future units, rather than current ad hoc "based on similar units" style used now.

[COMIS -3- ΠΑΝΙΩΝΑΡΑ]

I believe you should raise a bit the killing rate,it is nearly impossible to conquer a city with the battle time on!!Also if possible to insert standart formations during battle of some factions (romans ,hellenic,carthage etc)

[Ivir Baggins]

I believe you should raise a bit the killing rate,it is nearly impossible to conquer a city with the battle time on!!Also if possible to insert standart formations during battle of some factions (romans ,hellenic,carthage etc)

Can't speak for full-on assaults - I prefer to siege cities down unless they've bugger-all garrison - but if they're sallying you need to be able to cut them off outside the city walls such that either you can kill off most of them before they get to the square (cos they're fleeing through your troops) or get them all routing.