Thread: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

  1. #6601
    KAM 2150's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Gdańsk, Poland
    Posts
    10,415

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    It is easier to just copy AI campaign bonuses from legendary to lower difficulty. Legendary does not make AI better in campaign, it just buffs it and increases how agressive it is.
    Official DeI Instagram Account! https://www.instagram.com/divideetimperamod/
    Official DeI Facebook Page! https://www.facebook.com/divideetimperamod

  2. #6602

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    When sending your troops from Lybia to Phazania they even loose units on the default path. I think you should increase the size of the road a bit, so it is more easy to stay on the road and not loose Units all the time. It is a bit annoying to scan every millimetre with the mouse to avoid any losses..

  3. #6603
    ~Seleukos.I.Nikator~'s Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    The United Europe, currently residing in Norway
    Posts
    1,586

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    The roads are hardcoded, so there is nothing that can be done about it.

    If you mean loosing your troops to the desert attrition, then the best fix is to use a supply cart in the army stack to avoid that problem.

  4. #6604

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM 2150 View Post
    It is easier to just copy AI campaign bonuses from legendary to lower difficulty. Legendary does not make AI better in campaign, it just buffs it and increases how agressive it is.
    From the campaign difficulty handicap tables? Aside from deployable siege equipment, all the other modifiers look like they affect economy or campaign aspects of the game. Am I looking at the right place?


    Another question: What governes cavalry knocking down infantry? Is it just the relative unit mass + velocity + bracing effects? Is there a knockdown threshold value that can be tweaked to make them more or less common? I'd like to see more units go sprawling when cavalry crashes into them unprepared. If you could point me in the right direction of the variables I should try tweaking, I'd be grateful.

  5. #6605

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Oh god, really? Are we playing the same game? My understanding is that there’s a cavalry mass/impact damage rework in the progress, and one of the frequent complaints is that cavalry does far too much impact damage, both against infantry and against light cavalry. In fact, if you play MP at all, you’ll find that battles are 100% determined by who wins the cavalry engagement. Because a moving unit has 0 mass, even heavy infantry is decimated by frontally changing medium cavalry. That’s completely unhistorical, where in reality only the most heavy shock cavalry could actually charge formation infantry at all. Anyway, KAM is the one to ask about editing the values on your own as he’s the battle mechanic expert.

  6. #6606
    Demosthenes26's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    35

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    I've played some settlement battles as the seleucids against the Ptolomies, and I noticed that their garrison units (I think GAR_Egy_Citizen_Militia and GAR_Egy_Garrisoned_Spearmen) have the hoplite phalanx ability, despite having either Carian rectangular shields, or Thureos/wicker shields. Since the Hoplite Phalanx was dependent on using a Hoplon/Aspis to interlock shields, I'm wondering if this is intentional?

  7. #6607
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tulifurdum
    Posts
    1,306

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    I have a question to the Medewi faction and slingers, or, the lack of the latter. Is the absence of a slinger unit for the Medewi a gameplay design, for having diversity in the sense that not all factions should have easy access to slingers? Or is it because historical sources, or the total lack of historical sources (like findings of slingstones), indicate that the cultures in the area did not use slings and favored bows only?


    Quote Originally Posted by KAM 2150 View Post
    They use heavier arrows. Due to that they have lower range but have best AP damage of all archers.
    New feature of 1.2.5? That's actually really good design, and Xenophon would be pleased.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhvanputten View Post
    ...
    In fact, if you play MP at all, you’ll find that battles are 100% determined by who wins the cavalry engagement. ...
    At least for the Hellenistic period, that's quite historically accurate, isn't it?
    Last edited by geala; September 23, 2019 at 06:58 AM.

  8. #6608
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tulifurdum
    Posts
    1,306

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    sorry, double post, please delete

  9. #6609

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Quote Originally Posted by geala View Post
    I have a question to the Medewi faction and slingers, or, the lack of the latter. Is the absence of a slinger unit for the Medewi a gameplay design, for having diversity in the sense that not all factions should have easy access to slingers? Or is it because historical sources, or the total lack of historical sources (like findings of slingstones), indicate that the cultures in the area did not use slings and favored bows only?
    They've been like that since as far as I can remember actually, their armor damage just isn't mentioned on the unit stats information.

  10. #6610

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Guys, for the love of Zeus, would you please eliminate the special conditions for reforms for certain factions, especially the ones that rely on other cultures to reform? It's confusing and it's buggy, since the AI is unpredictable as a spoiled brat. For example, I've had the Odryssian kingdom, which rely on the greek reforms, reach the thorax reforms yesterday. I saved a few turns after that. Today, just when I was eager to recruit those armoured falxmen, I couldn't because it says the reforms haven't triggered yet. I've reloaded the save, same thing. Hours and hours of time wasted. I'm sick and tired of wasting time having to rely on other nations for my reforms. Carthage is another example. Nomadic factions as well. Getae too. Please, just make it simple and logical for anybody and have all the reforms be tied to imperium and turn level only, no other crap conditions, just like Rome, greek/successor states and celtic/germanic factions. There are already enough advantages for certain factions, there's no need for more, especially in reforms, which always should be tied to the way that faction performs without other nonsense, like some factions could conquer the whole map, but if they somehow don't fight the Romans or the Saka Rauka, they can't have reforms. Or hoping and praying that the greeks don't get obliterated before reaching their reforms in order to trigger yours. It's stupid. Let the player be on his own and choose the way he wants to expand without waiting for the AI to perform, which is always a dice roll. Sorry for the rant, but this issue bugs me long since the whole concept of reforms has been introduced in DeI.
    Last edited by Vladdy Daddy; September 23, 2019 at 02:41 PM.

  11. #6611

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladdy Daddy View Post
    Rant
    Both Carthage and the Odryssian Kingdoms depend on the global reform system, which already is only dependant on your turn number, it's not dependant on what other factions do. If your reform bugged out with a loaded save, then that could have also happened when the reform was player-bound. I do agree that we could introduce some kind of failsafe for factions like the Getae or Saka Rauka who rely on facing certain factions, to have their reforms trigger no matter what on a later turn, like EBII also did.

  12. #6612

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Quote Originally Posted by Dardo21 View Post
    Both Carthage and the Odryssian Kingdoms depend on the global reform system, which already is only dependant on your turn number, it's not dependant on what other factions do. If your reform bugged out with a loaded save, then that could have also happened when the reform was player-bound. I do agree that we could introduce some kind of failsafe for factions like the Getae or Saka Rauka who rely on facing certain factions, to have their reforms trigger no matter what on a later turn, like EBII also did.

    Carthage, Odryssian Kingdom, Pontus, Pergamon, I believe Armenia as well depend on the global greek reforms. I think all of these should be bundled into greek/successor factions. Parthia should go into nomadic and Getae to Rome, since they've adapted to the roman style of warfare in the current reforms. And then you have in the reforms script the required imperium and turn number for Rome, greek/succesor states, celtic/germanic and nomadic. All the player has to do is to research the purple tech and achieve the required imperium and turn level for its faction group. Simple, no more headaches, no more rants on monday evenings.
    Last edited by Vladdy Daddy; September 23, 2019 at 05:36 PM.

  13. #6613

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    But the global reforms already only require your own personal turn number, you're not dependant on anyone else for those.

  14. #6614

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Or, if this bundling isn't for anyone's taste, have these factions I've mentioned listed separately in the reforms script, with their respective imperium and turn level. The important thing is that the player should only be required to research the purple tech and achieve the imperium and turn level according to his faction of choosing and no other nonsense.

  15. #6615

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Quote Originally Posted by Dardo21 View Post
    But the global reforms already only require your own personal turn number, you're not dependant on anyone else for those.
    You are with Odryssian Kingdom, Pontus, even Carthage. The reforms do not trigger all the time, even though I've researched the purple tech and had the required imperium and turn level. I had to lower the imperium and turn values in order to alleviate these issues, especially with Carthage. I still have problems with the Odryssian Kingdom, sometimes they trigger, sometimes they don't.

  16. #6616

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    But you're still talking about imperium levels, the global reforms don't require an imperium level, only a turn number. Only factions with player reforms require an imperium level, which factions like Carthage and the Odryssian Kingdom do not.

  17. #6617

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Hello to all. Thanks for your work guys, really Rome 3! The only thing that causes me complaints is that it is too slow on the company's map. Especially sluggish and unhurried action to capture and war, with the player and other AI. Also, a request to attack the allies of a common enemy. I liked how it is implemented in DEI Realism. In reality, everything is faster and more active.

  18. #6618

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Quote Originally Posted by olegdo View Post
    Hello to all. Thanks for your work guys, really Rome 3! The only thing that causes me complaints is that the AI on the company map is too slow. Especially sluggish and unhurried action to capture and war, with the player and other AI. Also, a request to attack the allies of a common enemy. I liked how it is implemented in DEI Realism. In reality, everything is faster and more active.

  19. #6619

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    The base mod has to cater to many different levels of player (new and veteran). Sometimes its too aggressive for some, not aggressive enough for others. I think maybe that is what you are talking about? Anyway, that is why submods exist For those who want a different experience from the base line.

    ----> Website -- Patreon -- Steam -- Forums -- Youtube -- Facebook <----

  20. #6620
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tulifurdum
    Posts
    1,306

    Default Re: [Feedback] Questions, Critiques and Requests for 1.2

    Quote Originally Posted by Dardo21 View Post
    They've been like that since as far as I can remember actually, their armor damage just isn't mentioned on the unit stats information.
    I don't understand. The question was not for slinger stats or ap abilities but why you cannot recruit slingers as Medewi. I least I don't have them available. A bug?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •