Open Test Reports Round 4

[ABH2]

This is the thread for all testers to provide their feedback. Copy and pasting the PM sent out to the testing group for reference. If you have any suggestions on the organization of the testing process, feel free to let us know:

Hello everyone. This will be our fourth public test of the mod. It's kind of a transitionary phase in the development, not everything new is quite as polished. Right now, this mod adds in Meroe, the Iceni, Macedon, Aetolian League (only 7 units for now), and Achaean League from the last test. Not included - Baktria and Pergamon, which have been previewed, but aren't quite ready. Rome, Carthage, Numidia, Nabataea, and the Seleucids remain from before. The test is custom battle only, though you can load up the Grand Campaign startpos and check a few things out. If you hit end turn or try to do much, you may are liable to get a CTD so I'd advise against it. We hope to have an early testable campaign sometime in the next two months. Hopefully.

This time around, I am asking everyone to provide initial feedback in the form of a simple survey. Rate the following items on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being poor, and 10 being exceptional. Others ask you to provide some basic data, though if you have any specific feedback or extra detail on any, feel free to provide in the forum thread/provided link:

• Machine performance-Rate on a scale of 1-10. Do battles lag or lag too much for you? What is your framerate like?
• User Interface-Rate on a scale of 1-10 how you would rate the appearance of the UI. If any particular issues arise or areas are unreadable, please report.
• Battle length-How long are your battles lasting, on average? Specificy how many units are fighting on each side, as well.
• Battle Length Preference-How long would you like battles to last, on average?
• Unit Morale-Rate your thoughts on unit morale on a scale of 1-10. This is based on whether you think units held as long as you think they should have held. If they did not hold as long as you thought they should, which units and why do you think they should have held longer?
• Deployment Zones-Our deployment zones have been moved closer to one another and changed. Did you notice, and did you like the change? Would you like deployment zones potentially closer, or farther apart?
• Unit Balance-Do elite units act like elite units? Did some skirmisher unit eat up your cavalry? Let us know with the specific name of the unit.
• Displayed Unit Stats-Did you find the unit statistics intuitive and easy to understand?
  Light Infantry Movement Speed-Rate your satisfaction with light unit/skirmisher movement speed, 1-10. How fast do you think they should be?
• Medium Infantry Movement SpeedRate your satisfaction with medium infantry movement speed, 1-10. These are units such as lighter thureophoroi and even thorakitai. How fast do you think they should move?
• Heavy Infantry Movement Speed-Rate your satisfaction heavy infantry movement speed, 1-10. How fast do you think they should be?
• Phalanx Movement Speed-Rate your satisfaction with phalanx movement speed, 1-10. How fast do you think they should be?
• Cavalry Movement Speed-Rate your satisfaction with cavalry movement speed, 1-10. How fast do you think they should be?
• Missile Damage-Were your skirmisher units useful? Did you feel the need to use them? Do you think they do enough or too much damage?
• Historical Accruacy/Authenticity of Units-Rate on a scale of 1-10. This one is a bit subjective, but basically I am asking - do you buy the units? Do you think they are an accurate or authentic representation of soldiers in the ancient world? If not, where (what units) and why not?
• Overall Unit Appearance-Rate on a scale of 1-10. Do you like the look of the units, disregarding your response to the above?
• Importance of historical accuracy to you-Rate how much you value historical accuracy/authenticity on a scale of 1 to 10.
• New Animations-Please provide feedback on the new animations added to units. Do they seem accurate or how you pictured ancient military units moving/fighting? Did you like how they played? If you answered no, please tell us why.
• Clipping or missing models-Self-explanatory. Did you notice any clipping of unit models (things that don't look right, conflict), or were any units missing pieces?

Obviously, feedback you can provide is not limited to the above. But those are the places to start and a good deal of it is what I would call mandatory to providing good feedback.

In terms of feedback, a few ground rules:

• This will be the last time I will add new names to the list. If you get kicked off, you will not get another chance.
• That said, we are looking for valuable feedback. This isn't just a joyride to play. The way this will work is simple. People who provide feedback will have their names added to a new list that will start from scratch. People who don't provide any will simply not be added again.
• Post all feedback in the provided link/forum thread.
• The more detail you provide, the better. Pictures that show battle results and bugs are encouraged, if not completely necessary.
• Testers who prove themselves particularly valuable will gain access to our developer forum where they can provide feedback on ideas that haven't been made public and get early news.
• Obviously, the pack files we provide for the mod are not to be passed around without our permission.
• Please report all CTD's! That should be an obvious one, but those are always the primary focus.
• We will no longer be taking requests for testers. So, please, stop asking. I may make exceptions to people who have experience testing on other mods which they can prove to me, or people who routinely provide good feedback in our forum in general.

[stevehoos]

Just a quick comment about deployment zones -I have to work- so no time for anything else :

The armies are placed too close together. Even if I move my units to the far back of the deployment zone, I still see the AI's units during the start of the battle. I think this is going to cause redundancy and eliminate some strategy. The deployment zones in previous betas I thought were better balanced, this one is too extreme.

[Petellius]

Just a quick comment about deployment zones -I have to work- so no time for anything else :

The armies are placed too close together. Even if I move my units to the far back of the deployment zone, I still see the AI's units during the start of the battle. I think this is going to cause redundancy and eliminate some strategy. The deployment zones in previous betas I thought were better balanced, this one is too extreme.

If you mean once you press begin battle by 'start' this will happen no matter how far away the enemy is, as we made units see long distances as it helps with the enemy AI.

[Beast Within]

I second Stevehoos feelings, not because of the same reasons however. I understand why you like to allow for the AI to see. However the distance is too close for my liking in terms of maneuvering my troops about before the initial clash. If you perhaps doubled the distance between the two deployment zones that would be better i think.

I have played a couple of battles a few things i have noticed.

Firstly there are missing textures for the Cimbri. as you can see in the below images only the chieftain is displayed, the rest are invisible though they are there and do engage my units. The chariots only display the chariot themselves and not their rider/s. I have tried this on varying maps and no such luck.

Secondly, some UI cards have been repeated.

Thirdly, the macedonians have a phalanx unit called peltast. They are indeed a phalanx unit on the battle map.

When playing the game i have found that the units seem to run a little too easily. From my first battle we roughly had the same losses as the enemy. However their armies routed on mass due to a attack into the rear or something like this. As a result i can see this meaning that on the campaign map it may take several battles to finish an army off. If it is hard to build armies and there is plenty of stacks everywhere this is ok, but it is probably worth keeping in mind.

Also i found the pathfinding to be an issue when moving my army as a whole in formation. They seemed to clump together in the middle for no apparent reason.

And finally i noticed my cavalry had a major issue moving through my units. This isnt an issue if it is indeed meant. As tbh they should struggle to move through blocks of your infantry and as a result it will ensure players have to maneuver their cavalry better to ensure they dont get caught up in infantry.

EDIT:

Oh and going on the settings windows as you can see in the below images there is white text on a marble wall background so its virtually impossible to see. Dont know whether this is just macedonia or whether this has been finalised but obviously needs looking at at some point.

After some more battle experience with the varying factions i will post my ratings as per the message you sent. For now these are my thoughts however.

[Petellius]

Firstly there are missing textures for the Cimbri. as you can see in the below images only the chieftain is displayed, the rest are invisible though they are there and do engage my units. The chariots only display the chariot themselves and not their rider/s. I have tried this on varying maps and no such luck.

Secondly, some UI cards have been repeated.

Thirdly, the macedonians have a phalanx unit called peltast. They are indeed a phalanx unit on the battle map.

When playing the game i have found that the units seem to run a little too easily. From my first battle we roughly had the same losses as the enemy. However their armies routed on mass due to a attack into the rear or something like this. As a result i can see this meaning that on the campaign map it may take several battles to finish an army off. If it is hard to build armies and there is plenty of stacks everywhere this is ok, but it is probably worth keeping in mind.

And finally i noticed my cavalry had a major issue moving through my units. This isnt an issue if it is indeed meant. As tbh they should struggle to move through blocks of your infantry and as a result it will ensure players have to maneuver their cavalry better to ensure they dont get caught up in infantry.

On the Cimbri, they arent actually a faction, they are just filler for now and no units have been made yet.

Repeating unit cards are down to unit cards not existing for that unit yet, they are in the works though.

On the Peltast unt, I believe the unit is supposed to be called that, its just a phalanx unit with javelins.

On the army routing and being taking several turns to kill on the campaign map, that is the entire idea I had in mind when I made the battle mechanics, so I am glad it works! xD. We will also be adding a script to make routing units less vulnerable so they arent slaughtered in seconds.

The cavalry problem has been noted before this, I need to sort this out and it is indeed a bug, they also cant remount when dismounted :/ sorry.

[Beast Within]

On the Cimbri, they arent actually a faction, they are just filler for now and no units have been made yet.

Repeating unit cards are down to unit cards not existing for that unit yet, they are in the works though.

On the Peltast unt, I believe the unit is supposed to be called that, its just a phalanx unit with javelins.

On the army routing and being taking several turns to kill on the campaign map, that is the entire idea I had in mind when I made the battle mechanics, so I am glad it works! xD. We will also be adding a script to make routing units less vulnerable so they arent slaughtered in seconds.

The cavalry problem has been noted before this, I need to sort this out and it is indeed a bug, they also cant remount when dismounted :/ sorry.

Great, looking forward to seeing how the campaign works then. Turning defeats into a miraculous win after retreating could be very interesting.

As for the cavalry, this could potentially be an aspect of play. I always disapproved of how easily my cavalry passed through my units. Though a player will always use it to their advantage as have i it did seem very unrealistic. However, i can see this being a major issue for AI if it was to be kept in due to them needed sophisticated pathfinding skills to move around their own infantry and ensuring their pathway is clear before moving on the target unit so i imagine this would need resolving for the AI's sake at least. However, if some manner of scripting could be implemented so the AI could work around this that would be great, though i imagine that would also make a major headache for you, and may not even be possible. xD

As i say i will get a good few battles under my belt before filling out the survey. While i play if i notice any bugs i will bring them up.

[Onikenshin]

I decided to test as the Romans for the first few days to see if they are over powered as sometimes they are. I think they are. Against Carthage the only problems the AI gave me is when I gave them elephants, their elite units vs mine I just destroy them hands down, it should be much more even.

Battle positions are too far apart. The AI has been backing up a little bit until I advance, but I feel if I was playing against a human I would feel claustrophobic.

Graphics settings to the maximum performance, the lowest settings. Lowest unit sizes. I get about 30 FPS with a full stack against a full stack. On highest unit numbers it drops to 12. Don't even ask about having any graphics setting set higher is just not feasible. I am running an R9 290 and the 8 core AMD 4.0 GHZ CPU. There is definitely some optimization that is needed as with DeI for Rome 2 and Atilla I can run 50+ FPS with high - ultra settings with maximum units in an army, probably dip to 30FPS at times.

I am happy to see the Socii being pretty equivalent to the normal Roman units. I do think there needs to be variety for the Socii units, as they are all medium cavalry. They were certainly used in a heavy light - heavy cavalry capacity. Though they pretty much trampled all the Carthage cavalry I have played against, even being medium cavalry. So I am not quite sure where they are trying to fill. I have been using the Roman cavalry as light and heavy.

Charge speed for units is like non existent. There really isn't any sort of charge from the heavy units so that seems pretty odd looking. Equipment would probably weigh little more than American football gear, those guys can sprint extremely fast over short distances that an ancient battle would take place at. Especially when an enemy would charge, just a few paces from the enemy lines. My feedback is they are too slow charging. Though that might not matter if their damage and bonus is "this unit sprinted fast" but is just for eye candy. I just don't think it really even looks like a charge.

Update 15 of December
Javelins seem to make short work of cavalry units. 2 - 4 Javelin units are a match for two heavy cavalry. Not sure how you want that to play out. The cavalry died pretty instantly when they rushed my javelins. My feedback for balance seems to kind of have the same affect just not as fast. Increase the supply of javelins a unit has, lower the damage. In theory you have the same amount of damage going out but spread out over a longer period of time. This could increase the game times though. Full stack battles have been going 20 - 25 minutes. Ranged units just don't seem to have much of a presence. Though if I keep them in reserve to kill the enemy cavalry I can decimate the AI and just flat out win.

I do feel a need to use my skirmishers. In a battle without cavalry I can pelt down the front line of the AI pretty easily, giving me a good choke point. Most of my missile troops will die but I will win with minimal losses to my heavy infantry because it is so easy to just break through the front. I suppose it could technically be countered by screening my missile troops with cavalry but I could only test that against humans.

Having played additional skirmishes, I like how long the battles are going. To me they are in a sweet spot. Not too long but not too short.

I feel the non attacking testudo is a historical inaccuracy that impedes some gameplay. I feel it should reduce fatigue, decrease attack but not eliminate it, entity mass increase, missile block chance through the roof, and reduced movement speed, increase shield defense. This could also double down as the shield wall formation, basically a shield wall with missile block chance, my opinion is it gives the Romans more of a separate identity from the rest of the factions. I hope to see an anti cavalry formation as well as a spear point formation added to the Roman units.

Researching has yielded nothing about Socii allied cavalry but it makes sense they would use light, medium, and heavy cavalry as well as shock. I am sure it is still early on but the more I play with the cavalry of Carthage against Romans I really do decimate them much faster than if I played as the Romans against Carthage. Good use of the cavalry is just amazing. In a PvP scenario Rome vs Carthage I feel Rome would lose every time unless the Carthage player threw away their cavalry.

Something about Elephants. I think a formation, maybe an anti cavalry formation, should really increase the chance of making Elephants run amok. You can't really force an animal to run into a spiky shield wall. No matter how large animal is.

I think disciplined needs to go for the lower units. Keep it for general class as well as things like Triarii. I think it just denies benefit from killing the enemy general if everybody is disciplined.

[Denco]

Good to see a new wave of updates. I'll chip in with my findings, at the latest, the day after tomorrow. Until then stay strong AE team

[alejandromachine]

i want to be a beta tester please

[ABH2]

alexjandromachine, you should have received a PM as you were added to the list.

[Onikenshin]

Question.

Scenario - Principes vs Agema

So my Principes engage the Agema. Naturally they are held off for some time. Eventually they work their wear closer and closer until they wrap around the sides and rear of the Agema. The Agema then get out huge shields and a sword and just seem to easily defeat my Principes despite being picked apart on the sides and rear. Is this intended?

I feel like the shield defense and sword offense of Pikes need to go down. They should lose their pike and go sword infantry and be able to defeat a dedicated sword infantry. I feel the Pikemen were actually flanked by the flexible Maniple but then suddenly became superior swordsmen. Their primary attack should be with the pike and once they lose the ability to use the pike. Does flooding their flanks even give a bonus? If I have one maniple attacking and it just slowly encircles a unit? Is that a thing in the game?

[alejandromachine]

no sorry, i have received it thanks a lot

[alejandromachine]

I have not received anything please pm me

[Denco]

Ok so I did a few quick battle tests today with hoping I'll be able to do more tomorrow. I'm not a "this unit need to be stronger than the other unit" but I do fancy in balancing the overall battle balance. I'll post my quick findings bellow and even though it was only 1 battle it was enough to answer some of the questions clearly.

Machine performance-Rate on a scale of 1-10. Do battles lag or lag too much for you? What is your framerate like? -1

To make this clear I rated this 1 because of yet problems which I reckon were not yet thought trough. My average framerate was between 30 to 20. I reckon this is because of the huge unit sizes. To counteract this performance hit the only viable solution for the use is to lower the unit size in the options - which I didn't do otherwise the test would be inconclusive. I do think that the unit sizes are way to big for the current game engine. We might get glorious 20 fps now with only 2 stack fighting but imagine what will happen on the campaign when you get attack by 2 or 3 stacks and you're defending with 2 stacks ( something that happens quite a lot in TW games ). I don't think engine can take this.



User Interface-Rate on a scale of 1-10 how you would rate the appearance of the UI. If any particular issues arise or areas are unreadable, please report. -10

The UI overall is very eye pleasing.


Battle length-How long are your battles lasting, on average? Specificy how many units are fighting on each side, as well.

With 20vs20 battles I had varied time of 10 to 15 minutes. Depends on how I used my Cavalry. Anyway I find that the battle length time works best between 15 to 20 minutes but considering how hard it is nail this down properly because of many variables that need to be taken in the account ( flanking, morale penalties, etc ) I think that as long as the battles don't drag on too long, more than 30 minutes, the length is good.


Unit Morale-Rate your thoughts on unit morale on a scale of 1-10. This is based on whether you think units held as long as you think they should have held. If they did not hold as long as you thought they should, which units and why do you think they should have held longer? -1

I know there are many who like the way Attila implemented with units retreating and returning to battle over and over I find this very annoying. Short answer I really shouldn't be the one to answer this question because I hate this "new" feature of TW games. I think DeI got this right.


Deployment Zones-Our deployment zones have been moved closer to one another and changed. Did you notice, and did you like the change? Would you like deployment zones potentially closer, or farther apart?

As they are now they're too close. They need to be moved back a bit, but not by alot. Right now as soon as the battle starts my Archers are able to fire down on the enemy.


Unit Balance-Do elite units act like elite units? Did some skirmisher unit eat up your cavalry? Let us know with the specific name of the unit.

As I've already stated I don't like doing unit balance test's so can't comment on this. Don't get me wrong on this. This is the most demanding type of balance testing that requires the most time ( which I lack sadly ).


Displayed Unit Stats-Did you find the unit statistics intuitive and easy to understand?

Yes.


Unit movement speeds

I'll answer this question tomorrow when I'll conduct more tests.


Historical Accruacy/Authenticity of Units-Rate on a scale of 1-10. This one is a bit subjective, but basically I am asking - do you buy the units? Do you think they are an accurate or authentic representation of soldiers in the ancient world? If not, where (what units) and why not?

I believe that the answer is yes, the units to act and feel historical.


Overall Unit Appearance-Rate on a scale of 1-10. Do you like the look of the units, disregarding your response to the above? -10


Importance of historical accuracy to you-Rate how much you value historical accuracy/authenticity on a scale of 1 to 10. -10


New Animations-Please provide feedback on the new animations added to units. Do they seem accurate or how you pictured ancient military units moving/fighting? Did you like how they played? If you answered no, please tell us why.

As I've already saw most if not all of the animations in DeI I can already tell you I like them very much


This were just a few points I picked on today. I can't wait for this mod to get released ( even though its a bit far away for now )

[alejandromachine]

i tested it and the morale is low, the game often close, i can't recruit generals or units, also i can't recruits statesmen, you should improve the texture of the armor units, and the family tree doesn't work good for example: i can't click characters or i don't see the family characters.
you should add more armies and fleets in the main campaign for all fantions and also you should create an spanish UPC PLEASE

[Petellius]

The campaign isn't playable yet I'm afraid just stick to battles for now. Also on the units returning to battle a lot that will be less annoying once I've completely fixed the BAI to use reserves as then the depleted units are replaced by fresh units in an orderly fashion.

[Revan The Great]

Hi guys. I've been too busy with school to take part in the last round of testing but I finished up my finals yesterday and I got my PM this morning about a new testing round so I thought I'd participate. It helps that I have a brand new computer now too I spent a lot of this morning playing and here's my feedback so far.

• Machine performance: 10 - I can play large battles on very high settings without framerate issues, but I also have a very powerful computer.
• User Interface: 9 - Very nice, and I like the variety between (for example) Celtic and Greek UI)
• Battle length: 10 - Battles last maybe 10 minutes or a little less with equally sized armies of around 18 units, with a mix of mid-line and elite units.
• Battle Length Preference: 10 - I consider the current time ideal. One thing that I am annoyed with in DeI is how battles feel (to me) unnaturally long and that individual units of no particular distinction will stand and fight for forever.
• Unit Morale: 7 - Generally good, but there are a few exceptions. I still feel that some units will rout seemingly at random and flee the battle-line with the majority of their men alive. Right now it needs to be tweaked a little bit because it can swing a little too wildly. For example, Principes routing against superior numbers with almost no casualties and no flanking. Or another time I had Companion Cavalry flee (2/3rds men remaining) as they roamed behind the enemy lines to get into position to charge. Not under attack or pressure, just scared by being isolated.
• Deployment Zones: 8 - I really like the change, actually, although it could be toned down slightly to prevent situations where you're instantly under fire at the start of battle. But overall it's a good thing...pre-battle maneuvers, getting your men into position and all of that is great and theory but it just doesn't work well in the video game arena.
• Unit Balance: 7 - In some cases this is quite good. For example, in Rome versus Carthage I will see something like African Veterans and Sacred Band holding the middle of the line while the flanks of Iberians/Italians/whatever are routed, leaving the hardened core to get surrounded. I believe that generally the melee units do pretty well - Triarii, Shield-Bearers, African Veterans, Galatian Royal Guard, etc. feel like they perform like they should and are very reliable, but not ridiculous. I think the problem is a little more with cavalry units, which in general feel like they perform awkwardly. More on that later.
• Displayed Unit Stats: 6 - I can't readily tell any difference between the Katoikoi Pikes with chainmail and those with linthorax because their stats -appear- the same. Is it just aesthetic? Likewise it's also not clear how entering formations affects stats. For example, enabling Attacking Testudo on my Hastati says they should get -100% attack, yet their attack stat remains unchanged.
• Light Infantry Movement Speed: 10 - These are the only guys that feel like they are actually running.
• Medium Infantry Movement Speed: 7 - Lethargic. Not awful, but they move too slowly for my tastes.
• Heavy Infantry Movement Speed: 4 - Very poor. Heavy infantry lackadaisically shuffles around the battlefield, hobbled, impotent. There's no 'mass' or 'power' there, just lumbering and slow.
• Phalanx Movement Speed: 5 - Could be higher I guess, but it is a phalanx formation. I haven't looked at this much yet, however.
• Cavalry Movement Speed: 2 - Cavalry are just god-awful slow. I had Equites barely outrunning Iberian Scutarii. Cavalry have no freedom of movement, no shock, no anything. Like heavy infantry they lumber around the battlefield, ponderous, unwieldy, frustrating.
• Missile Damage: 8 - The actual damage seems pretty decent. When in positions to fire my missile units inflicted reasonable but not impressive casualties. My bigger gripe is that, in my experience, archers only get off maybe one volley before combat is joined, and javelinmen don't even manage a single volley before skirmish mode sends them running from their enemies. I don't know if you can increase range or rate of fire or anything, but admittedly this is an issue throughout Total War and not unique to the mod.
• Historical Accuracy/Authenticity of Units: 9 - Generally very impressive. My one complaint is that the Numidian roster looks a little too 'African Tribesman' stereotype and kind of disregards that Numidia was a credible military power with various degrees of Romanization and Hellenization in their armed forces. Although perhaps there are still more units to be added for them.
• Overall Unit Appearance: 10 - Easily a 10. The units look gorgeous, detailed, and interesting. Generally very pleased with the excellent work on unit appearance.
• Importance of historical accuracy to you: 9 - I definitely come from the Europa Barbarorum clique on Rome 1 and prefer my mods as accurate as possible. That said, I am comfortable with making some trade-offs of historical authenticity where gameplay and interesting unit rosters are needed.
• New Animations: 9 - I haven't taken as much time as I should to just zoom in and watch units fight, but so far they look good. I like the Triarii kneeling at wait, and how heavy infantry move with their shields up and weapons poised 'at the ready' position.
• Clipping or missing models: 9 - So far I've only noticed one example of significant clipping. Here pictured http://steamcommunity.com/id/raventh...30471917668531 is one Shield Bearer (with the flared white armor skirts) that seems to clip with the capes. Every Shield Bearer with that flared, white armor skirts has the issue. But it's very minor and only noticeable at certain distances.

------------------

Generally good stuff. I'd say that right now I'm very happy with unit rosters, appearance, and the way the campaign map is shaping up. But I still think morale needs significant changes to tone down the wilder swings and make it more dependable. Also I'm generally dissatisfied with unit movespeeds and think they need to be increased.

Two particular anecdotes I want to impart:

1) Companion Cavalry and Equites charge each other - Equites end up winning handily. This is because the charge bonus between lance and spear armed cavalry does not differ -too- much, so the Companions are not able to achieve a decisive, early shock. This means that the Equite's higher overall stats make them win out in the end, whereas in real life Equites should be easily dominated by Companions.

2) Phalanx Pikemen need some work as well. I did a couple of battles and while they do hold their ground well and don't rout. However, against Romans charging head on, they don't inflict hardly any casualties, and take moderate damage themselves. I would be 'okay' if they traded about even, 1:1 against high quality enemies, although I'd prefer that they give better than they get. However, if they take more losses than they inflict while sustaining a frontal assault, this isn't very good. Admittedly I know this is also a problem in other mods as well but hopefully we can find a way to address it here.

[Denco]

[QUOTE=Revan The Great;14801057]

• Machine performance: 10 - I can play large battles on very high settings without framerate issues, but I also have a very powerful computer.[QUOTE]

You're being very one sided here. What are framerate issues for you? 10-20fps, 20-30fps?

[Revan The Great]

You're being very one sided here. What are framerate issues for you? 10-20fps, 20-30fps?

I was getting consistently 40+ FPS. Frame rate issues for me are probably when things dip below 30, and at that point it begins to detract from the experience. Playing at a consistent 28 frames is no big deal, but when it starts dipping down to 20 and below during more intense times, it's not so good.

[ABH2]

Kind of going to go through this thread and respond to some things.

Thirdly, the macedonians have a phalanx unit called peltast. They are indeed a phalanx unit on the battle map.

The term 'peltast' in the third and second century did not have the same meaning in Hellenistic armies as most players are used to. The peltasts were actually elite, almost semi-professional forces in the Antigonid and Ptolemaic armies. They were used as assault infantry, on forced marches, special tasks, but also as pike units in the main battle lines. So, when Livy actually provides his major insight on the phalanx versus the legion/maniple, he actually does it in the context of Roman allied units fighting against the Macedonian peltast corps.

Some of this can be confusing because I don't believe I included the latest unit descriptions with the units. That's my mistake, but the unit as depicted is what it is meant to be.

I am happy to see the Socii being pretty equivalent to the normal Roman units. I do think there needs to be variety for the Socii units, as they are all medium cavalry. They were certainly used in a heavy light - heavy cavalry capacity. Though they pretty much trampled all the Carthage cavalry I have played against, even being medium cavalry. So I am not quite sure where they are trying to fill. I have been using the Roman cavalry as light and heavy.

Well, the reality is that Italian cavalry was all kind of the same. The Romans didn't really have light or heavy cavalry in the Second Punic War, and the cavalry in Italy only got heavier after it by 202 BC. Auxilla units tended to fill the 'light' cav role - Numidians in particular were standard in Roman armies after the defeat of Hannibal. They campaigned everywhere with the Romans, and that's why they've been added as an option.

The Socii cav units, especially by this period, would have fought the same as the Romans. They really always did, from an equipment standpoint.

The Campanian cavalry typically get depicted as lancers by some mods, but the only depictions we have from that region of cavalry was always with a shield, short spears and javelins. There is no evidence I am ware of for lancer cavalry in Italy. In terms of light cav, the Tarantine cavalry was developed there, but Tarentum did not provide infantry or cavalry to Rome in real life. It was used as a naval ally. Its treaty terms were to provide ships, not ground units.

I know there are many who like the way Attila implemented with units retreating and returning to battle over and over I find this very annoying. Short answer I really shouldn't be the one to answer this question because I hate this "new" feature of TW games. I think DeI got this right.

I agree with this, Denco.. I find it incredibly annoying how units retreat and come back. It just makes the battles a chaotic mess, and not in what I would consider a realistic manner.

Generally very impressive. My one complaint is that the Numidian roster looks a little too 'African Tribesman' stereotype and kind of disregards that Numidia was a credible military power with various degrees of Romanization and Hellenization in their armed forces. Although perhaps there are still more units to be added for them.

I think when it comes to Numidia, there are a lot of actual depictions of these guys and William did a lot of research there. There are some heavy infantry units (which weren't a mainstay), and I think in general people tend to picture ancient world units heavier than they were. The difference between heavy and light infantry wasn't that great and could often be as simple as having a spear versus having a sword.

2) Phalanx Pikemen need some work as well. I did a couple of battles and while they do hold their ground well and don't rout. However, against Romans charging head on, they don't inflict hardly any casualties, and take moderate damage themselves. I would be 'okay' if they traded about even, 1:1 against high quality enemies, although I'd prefer that they give better than they get. However, if they take more losses than they inflict while sustaining a frontal assault, this isn't very good. Admittedly I know this is also a problem in other mods as well but hopefully we can find a way to address it here.

This is kind of an old argument in TW games. When it comes to fighting Romans, though, by all accounts - the phalanx was a tough nut to crack, but it did not kill many of them. Roman casualties were very low. Of course, the battles against Pyrrhus were very bloody on both sides. I myself remain skeptical of the killing power of a sarissa being wielded by guys in a tight formation. In general I think it simply acted as a steamroller.

So my Principes engage the Agema. Naturally they are held off for some time. Eventually they work their wear closer and closer until they wrap around the sides and rear of the Agema. The Agema then get out huge shields and a sword and just seem to easily defeat my Principes despite being picked apart on the sides and rear. Is this intended?

The Agema are an elite unit. I'm a bit confused on which version you are speaking of. The tier 1 versus 2. The Principes and Agema should probably be about evenly matched to me. They were a highly trained unit used for multiple roles. The elite of the peltasts mentioned above, heavily armored. They fought in a phalanx in pitched battles, but they were used in a multitude of roles. A heavy Roman 'sword unit' likely still had advantages, but one unit of Principes losing to the absolute elite Hellenistic infantry doesn't overly concern me. To me it should be close to a coin flip which wins.

Principes are fairly heavily armored, have a bigger shield, and a superior sword. They have an argument. It's not a bad point. I'll give it some thought.