[Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Hi; Is it possible to remove the old plague system that still "plagues" the GC ??

Whilst I've been trying to learn to avoid such things - what's wrong with it?

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Can client state be changed so your newly acquiered vassal stops ongoing war vs your allies ?

I believe it's not possible.

Hi; Is it possible to remove the old plague system that still "plagues" the GC ??

Any issues with it ?

[Roma Invicta753]

Because Egypt had those guys and they were important part of their late history. Just type their name (Gabiniani) in wiki.

I think they should be only available in Imperator August campaign.

[KAM 2150]

Actually that is only campaign where they SHOULD NOT be avaliable as they were slaughtered by Caesar.

[KAM 2150]

I see, thanks for explaining that aspect of the roster Kam. One last question in regards to the successors is the lack of lack of "settler" phalangitai outside of Egypt. I seem to recall there once being a wide variety of available non elite pikes, Katoikoi, Pantodapoi etc. Why is it only the Ptolemies retain these units?

Because previous pike units were not realistic and in many cases, did not even exist.

Basically from sources all non elite pike regiments of Antigonids and Seleucids were called Bronze Shields while in case of Egypt they were refered more as Katoikoi but not Bronze Shields.

[Olmsted]

Is it possible to get a higher cap on Armies and Fleets at the top Imperium level? For a top tier empire, 18 Armies and 9 Fleets just isn't enough. I'd personally also like more agents at that level as well.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

I have looked - I promise (and realise it's late to the party....), but:

Lots of buildings are available once you have actually acquired a 'Resource' - or have established a Trading Partner that has it. Hence the 'growing trading network' that is perfectly described.

However - so far (previous version and now latest Steam - with no other Mods (ever) less the current 10-parter) I have not found it possible to build either the 'Armourer' line (Armour/Shields) or 'Weaponsmith' line (Weapons) without actually capturing one of those particular settlements and establishing a 'Mine'.

Am I missing something? Or is this by design for those two things? ie I would possibly have expected a Level II building off the 'Workshop' line (as in Vanilla iirc) that is now enabled only if you have access to the resource...

[hippacrocafish]

The Ligurian infantry (massalia) should really have a unit card that shows off their cool helmets instead of the bald dweeb that on their card now.

A super minor, insignificant thing, but something to consider if you ever change the cards in the future.

[Olmsted]

Given that it is not possible to modify navy movement ranges without also modifying army movement ranges, would it be possible to get a naval ancillary who greatly increases navy range?

[MAM3166]

No, not really. As a matter of fact I liked the old plague system, albeit one occurrence every five-six turns in Judea is somehow exaggerated; However since you guys have successfully implemented the sanitation in GC I find it to be quite antiquated.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

I have looked - I promise (and realise it's late to the party....), but:

Lots of buildings are available once you have actually acquired a 'Resource' - or have established a Trading Partner that has it. Hence the 'growing trading network' that is perfectly described.

However - so far (previous version and now latest Steam - with no other Mods (ever) less the current 10-parter) I have not found it possible to build either the 'Armourer' line (Armour/Shields) or 'Weaponsmith' line (Weapons) without actually capturing one of those particular settlements and establishing a 'Mine'.

Am I missing something? Or is this by design for those two things? ie I would possibly have expected a Level II building off the 'Workshop' line (as in Vanilla iirc) that is now enabled only if you have access to the resource...

Just to confirm - I test built a Workshop (Level I) - the only option available thereafter is the Level III 'workshop' that is only additionally available after a Technology gain.

Should I therefore cross-post this as I think it's an actual bug? You do actually intend the Level II 'Armourer'/'Weaponsmith' building to be available from a Level I Workshop; provided the resource is available via Trade - but it doesn't work?

[Jake Armitage]

Given that it is not possible to modify navy movement ranges without also modifying army movement ranges, would it be possible to get a naval ancillary who greatly increases navy range?

it is possible to modify navy only, check testudo movement file and delete army part in PFM, then put the value you wish, you could sail to australia in a jump

@ olmsted: "Is it possible to get a higher cap on Armies and Fleets at the top Imperium level? For a top tier empire, 18 Armies and 9 Fleets just isn't enough. I'd personally also like more agents at that level as well. "

sure, db > fame_levels_tables. they are divided depending on campaign (main, gaul...)

[Dresden]

Just to confirm - I test built a Workshop (Level I) - the only option available thereafter is the Level III 'workshop' that is only additionally available after a Technology gain.

Should I therefore cross-post this as I think it's an actual bug? You do actually intend the Level II 'Armourer'/'Weaponsmith' building to be available from a Level I Workshop; provided the resource is available via Trade - but it doesn't work?

They are only available in those locations. Vanilla is similar but they use the main city building whereas we use a region specific building restricted to the resource location.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

They are only available in those locations. Vanilla is similar but they use the main city building whereas we use a region specific building restricted to the resource location.

Thank you.

In fact, it does seem a bit odd - for all other 'upgrades' dependant on resources can be done the 'other' way. But the Armour and Weapons are only if you get bigger and expand. I guess it's a deliberate 'drive' to want to gain them by conquest?

[Olmsted]

While I generally love the variety created when the AI factions do a lot of liberating, I think it could use some adjustments. Liberating is an awesome mechanic that keeps the map fresh and exciting in the late game. I hate the late game grind of "40 turns versus one faction, 40 turns against another faction." If possible, this is the logic I would like to see applied:

1. If attacking a faction in a province where it already owns one region, the AI should always choose to capture or federate rather than liberate or create a client state. Having a faction control an entire province makes for a stronger faction and is a good feature.
2. If attacking a faction in the same culture group,the AI should always choose to capture or federate, rather than liberate. It doesn't add that much variety to fight the Arverni and the Namnetes. Both are the same basic culture. Fighting the Gallic Confederation is more challenging.
3. If attacking a faction in a different culture group, the AI should always choose to create a client state or satrapy rather than liberate. This makes the AI stronger by giving it more complete control over the map, while still retaining variety on the map.

[aravanal05]

Parthia without peltast? i don´t know if historic, but for a eatern power is hard to see in Rome 2.

[aravanal05]

*skirmish

[KAM 2150]

Why Parthia should have peltasts? They are not Greeks, they did not use such unit and they have other ranged units in their place. Not to mention that in DeI timeframe, Parthia pretty much used only cavalry and yes, their cavalry is the best for skirmish.

[Dresden]

While I generally love the variety created when the AI factions do a lot of liberating, I think it could use some adjustments. Liberating is an awesome mechanic that keeps the map fresh and exciting in the late game. I hate the late game grind of "40 turns versus one faction, 40 turns against another faction." If possible, this is the logic I would like to see applied:

1. If attacking a faction in a province where it already owns one region, the AI should always choose to capture or federate rather than liberate or create a client state. Having a faction control an entire province makes for a stronger faction and is a good feature.
2. If attacking a faction in the same culture group,the AI should always choose to capture or federate, rather than liberate. It doesn't add that much variety to fight the Arverni and the Namnetes. Both are the same basic culture. Fighting the Gallic Confederation is more challenging.
3. If attacking a faction in a different culture group, the AI should always choose to create a client state or satrapy rather than liberate. This makes the AI stronger by giving it more complete control over the map, while still retaining variety on the map.

That would be great, but unfortunately all we can mod is a table that sets priority based on a numbered system that they AI then uses to randomly select a weighted variable to decide on their occupation option.

Thank you.

In fact, it does seem a bit odd - for all other 'upgrades' dependant on resources can be done the 'other' way. But the Armour and Weapons are only if you get bigger and expand. I guess it's a deliberate 'drive' to want to gain them by conquest?

Yes, we want strategic value to certain locations and reasons to have to hold them.

[Olmsted]

Having almost finished my Roman campaign (I am a couple of turns away from victory, so I took a break from it), I started a Macedonia campaign. I think the liberation mechanic might unfavorably hurt the AI down the road. Rome has made a client state in Etruria and liberated another region very early on... I fear the worst for her future expansion.