WIP Fix Pack 1.2.2b - Battle Stats Overhaul, come help us test! (Updated Oct 30)

[milohve01]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...an-Shield-Wall ....I think this is if it is altered maybe it can improve

[milohve01]

I am exactly seeing that the only solution is to cross that type of units are very lethal in the front

[KAM 2150]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...an-Shield-Wall ....I think this is if it is altered maybe it can improve

No, that one is not working. Shieldwall ability from the base game is only graphical thing and only for limited use. AI is unable to use it and player can use it only when unit is walking or standing but will turn off during combat or running so basically it does not work.

[Uljas]

Against melee infantry (3-exp-armenian legion), principes using formation attack more-often-than-not outperform 2-exp-principes not using formation. Wider unit shape seems to complement formation attack, although being wider than the enemy generally seems better. It's kinda precarious trying to figure out a reliable outcome, it depends on luck in attacks and how the units happen to make contact, and an actual battle setting with big armies is different. But I think it's safe to say (maybe) that the formation attack at least doesn't make the unit perform worse as such, even without the 5 melee defence buff. Except against phalanxes, when the only hope would be to outflank them.

So far I like it, at least for having something that sets apart the roman way of infantry fighting from others.

[KYREAPER]

Against melee infantry (3-exp-armenian legion), principes using formation attack more-often-than-not outperform 2-exp-principes not using formation. Wider unit shape seems to complement formation attack, although being wider than the enemy generally seems better. It's kinda precarious trying to figure out a reliable outcome, it depends on luck in attacks and how the units happen to make contact, and an actual battle setting with big armies is different. But I think it's safe to say (maybe) that the formation attack at least doesn't make the unit perform worse as such, even without the 5 melee defence buff. Except against phalanxes, when the only hope would be to outflank them.

So far I like it, at least for having something that sets apart the roman way of infantry fighting from others.

I can second this. However i used 1exp units vs 1exp units.

I used Late Principes(in formation) vs Armenian legion - and the Principes clearly beat the Armenian legion.

Then...

I used the same units, but took the Principes OUT of formation attack... and it was a even fight.. the Principes won... but at they were constantly within 1-5 kills from each other...

So you seem to be correct.. against a phalanx, formation attack makes them weaker...
But against other units, formation attack(in fair scenarios) seem to make the unit slightly better.

Now I wonder...
Is it possible to make the unit formation tighter, when using formation attack?
Or just tighter by default?
Would that make the romans fight cohesively and attack 3v1 instead of fighting 1v1? Giving the formation an advantage?

Because currently, formation attack just appears to be a visual thing(with some invisible attribute bonuses).

What i mean is.... while in formation attack, the soldiers arent any more pact together... they just stay in a square instead of blobbing...

but even blobbing, they arent closer/or farther spaced out...

So either way, its just a bunch of 1v1's... except formation attack keeps some units out of combat range since they have to stay in formation instead of walking forward to hit the enemy.

[Denco]

Sorry to go off topic, but I remember in the old versions of DeI where a battle could last for an hour and 30+ minutes was a standard . It was pretty cool at first, but I have to admit that I really like the road this mod has taken, especially regarding the battles.

[CIaagent11]

Yes, I like fast battles as well.

[Mietek88]

The best Spartan troops against Epirus Chalkaspides. Total spartan defeat. Setting-normal battle. (updated Oct 30)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[KAM 2150]

Yes, that is correct, should end like this, Spartan hoplites were no match for phalanx, reach is the main deal. Also Spartans were no gods and in that case they are still outreached by a lot. Pikes are hard counter to hoplites. Even Hastati take Chalkaspides down when enveloping them (although Principes out of formation will do that better and safer).

[Maetharin]

The fact that you aren't blobbing and staying in formation protects you from being attacked anywhere besides your front.
The romans were known to fight in more open space formation

BTW KYRREAPER, could you also tell us which of the fights took longer?

[KYREAPER]

Principes(formation attack ON) vs Armenian Legions
Princ kills 96(WIN) Armen legion kills 75

Battle time: 8:29
---------------------------------------------
Principes(formation attack OFF) vs Armenian Legions
Princ kills 99(WIN) Armen legion kills 76

Battle time: 7:13

*Note: The principes started to waver, but then recovered and won.
The principes never got behind though, just mutual wavering.

[Goatse_Mare]

I really like the new stat changes and battles feel much more dynamic, but also a little too fast in my opinion, as others have pointed out. I personally preferred the days of 30-45 min battles being the norm. That ultimate commander submod sounds awesome. Can't wait to try it out. Keep up the great work fellas.

[KAM 2150]

Thanks for awesome tests I will have a lot at work this and next week so I will have less time for modding but good news is that I have an entire week off in November so there will be plenty modding


Goatse, 30-45 minute for average battles is also not a good thing, that is pretty much playing on cheat mode as once AI engages in melee, it will not do much more so you just deliver unrealistic 25 rear charges until you win ;P Althouhg 20-25 minute battles should not be a rare thing on that submod. It should get released around the time I will have that time off in Nov.

[CIaagent11]

Thank you very much for your effort. I know how strenuous this type of testing work can be. I feel like you are on to something great here. I quickly tested the October 30 version. Just to offer some input, I often autocalc battles I would prefer to fight, just because investing over half an hour is so much. That leads me to not know my armies and have an overall worse experience. Short battles would seem like a great solution.

Also, I found phalanxes way overpowered, and massively nerfed them in my personal mod setup. And they are still a hassle to defeat, even after I surrounded them from four sides and the rest of their army routed. Its the reason tiny city states like Athens often unrealistically spread like wildfire in the campaign.

[KAM 2150]

I have equal amount of complains that phalanaxes are too weak and too overpowered, which means they are in good place ;P

[Frosthammer]

What about using first strike stat to balance weapons? Or it doesn`t work in Rome2?

[KYREAPER]

I really dont understand how people can say Phalanxes are too OP, and then they claim it takes 4 units surrounding them to win...

Look, you are probably fighting against an elite phalanx unit(general unit or something close) and yeah, they are going to hold out a long time, even surrounded. Thats realistic for highly trained units that focus on a DEFENSIVE formation.

A phalanx unit is not going to win a 1v4, unless the 4 units are severely injured and of worst troop quality.

Also, if you take a mid-tier phalanx, and surround it by 4 units, its toast. It dies quick. The mid-tier unit has NO CHANCE and get destroyed without a problem.


Also, anyone remember The Roman Triarii being surrounded in the Battle of Cannae? Holding out forever, when surrounded on all sides? Yeah, guess what, it can happen with a super trained defensive unit.

Now, if a phalanx general unit was 1v4'ing full strength mid-tier(not weak) units or elite units, then yeah they would be OP.


But often I see these ppl saying "phalanx is OP" and then when questioned, they mention it was something like Epirus' Hellenic Royal Guard..... the elite general unit...

yeah... it holds out a while.. but its basically getting no kills on its back side... and very few from its sides... its going to lose the battle - unless you got destroyed through most of the battle and ur sitting there trying to kill a 250 man pike phalanx using 4 units with 70 men each who are tired and damaged. Yeah, a single highly trained, disciplined unit is probably gonna kick a lot of butt before dying, and if a few guys on the 4-team side rush in a little fast, maybe the phalanx wins entirely.

[priam54]

I agree that phalanxes are not OP. We are talking about elite units, training their defensive formation professionally for so many years. If you fight against them, I think they give you a lot of time to outmaneuver them.

[CIaagent11]

I really dont understand how people can say Phalanxes are too OP, and then they claim it takes 4 units surrounding them to win...

Look, you are probably fighting against an elite phalanx unit(general unit or something close) and yeah, they are going to hold out a long time, even surrounded. Thats realistic for highly trained units that focus on a DEFENSIVE formation.

A phalanx unit is not going to win a 1v4, unless the 4 units are severely injured and of worst troop quality.

Also, if you take a mid-tier phalanx, and surround it by 4 units, its toast. It dies quick. The mid-tier unit has NO CHANCE and get destroyed without a problem.


Also, anyone remember The Roman Triarii being surrounded in the Battle of Cannae? Holding out forever, when surrounded on all sides? Yeah, guess what, it can happen with a super trained defensive unit.

Now, if a phalanx general unit was 1v4'ing full strength mid-tier(not weak) units or elite units, then yeah they would be OP.


But often I see these ppl saying "phalanx is OP" and then when questioned, they mention it was something like Epirus' Hellenic Royal Guard..... the elite general unit...

yeah... it holds out a while.. but its basically getting no kills on its back side... and very few from its sides... its going to lose the battle - unless you got destroyed through most of the battle and ur sitting there trying to kill a 250 man pike phalanx using 4 units with 70 men each who are tired and damaged. Yeah, a single highly trained, disciplined unit is probably gonna kick a lot of butt before dying, and if a few guys on the 4-team side rush in a little fast, maybe the phalanx wins entirely.

Historically, a phalanx formation would more or less have disintegrated as soon as it got caught from the side or back, let alone got surrounded. Nobody else in the ancient world developed that style of fighting, precisely because they were so vulnerable. It was a historical oddity of narrow, hilly greece, where you couldn't use cavalty or mobile troops well.*
Original greek phalanx warfare was more about pushing the enemy out of formation han killing them all. It was a ritualized sport with very low losses. You had the young men in the back shoving from both sides, and it was all about which side had the endurance to stay in formation a little longer against that strain. Eventually one side caved in and the whole thing would fall apart. Then that side would noot fight on, because their formation was broken and they were not a cohesive fighting force any more. As TW players, we tend to view these blocks of men as glued together, but keep in mind that in real life these are people, who have an increadibly hard time sticking together as a block. As such, it is unrealistic that the game keeps them in formation after being caught in the side or rear. And they should not have stats that allow them to be an effective force after that, or contently keep delivering kills until they lost two thirds of men. Yes, elite troops might have fought on or a while. But that would have been very elite troops, and they would have done it out of principle, not because they had a hope of winning. They would not have had room to wield their weapons properly, and not been an effective fighing force. The formation as such wold have been dead.

*Alexander and the diadochi used them outside of greece to some effect, but their whole thing was to combine them with mobile troops and cavalry according to the eastern style of fighting, who would wield around to deliver the winning blow. The phalanx as such would jsut pin the enemy into place and was not expected or capable of winning the battle on their own, because they were not particularly effective as soon as you were on open ground and the enemy could use anything mobile to catch them in the side. The kept using them partially because that's what they knew and traditions are slow to change, and they would have made hella sure to properly screen them, so they wouldn't get caught from behind. And still, the diadochi they learned the hard way that phalanxes lose out agaisnt more flexible formations.

[Goatse_Mare]

Original greek phalanx warfare was more about pushing the enemy out of formation han killing them all. It was a ritualized sport with very low losses. You had the young men in the back shoving from both sides, and it was all about which side had the endurance to stay in formation a little longer against that strain. Eventually one side caved in and the whole thing would fall apart.

Just so you know, this theory is highly debated among historians. There is currently no consensus agreement on what happened when two Greek phalanxes clashed and the shoving match model is just one of many possible ideas.