Desert Kingdoms DLC Pack

[Alwyn]

No-one here wants to be "unfriendly". Not sure where you are getting that from.

When people have a different view from you about a game, making accusations that they have 'agendas', are 'biased' or are only saying things because they are CA employees doesn't come across to me as friendly:

... if I believe certain people here are posting with agendas or bias I will say so. .... Having a debate is fine but when certain sides of a debate are biased in that they dont argue objectively it becomes a waste of time hence why I said might as well stick them on the ignore list. If things change I might change my opinion. ... p.s debates in theory are arguments from unbiased sides presenting arguments. We dont have that here.

Problem is people here seem to be way too personally attached to a video game or as I have alluded to have "agendas". (I.e are linked to the series either as an employee or say as a modder/YouTubers) .

If you're not here to be unfriendly and if you're willing to do more than repeat the same complaints about the game, then here's your chance to prove it.

How is your Desert Kingdoms campaign going, Totalheadache? Which Desert Kingdoms faction did you choose to play first? What do you see as the main challenges with playing this faction? Maybe you have developed strategies for this faction which you could post on the Desert Kingdoms strategy thread.

[Totalheadache]

When people have a different view from you about a game, making accusations that they have 'agendas', are 'biased' or are only saying things because they are CA employees doesn't come across to me as friendly:





If you're not here to be unfriendly and if you're willing to do more than repeat the same complaints about the game, then here's your chance to prove it.

How is your Desert Kingdoms campaign going, Totalheadache? Which Desert Kingdoms faction did you choose to play first? What do you see as the main challenges with playing this faction? Maybe you have developed strategies for this faction which you could post on the Desert Kingdoms strategy thread.

No thats not what I said at all. I didnt say because they have a different view they have agendas...I said it was possible and a reason for someone to not bother responding because I "suspect" something. If you have a problem with this then I dont know what to say. Unless of course you say its not true but again I would say its very likely.

I have already posted my view on the dlc as being cut n paste and since then have been defending a members post after it was given short change by certain members (and actually the tone there was unfriendly and personal after he was criticising the product not people). You seem to think therefore that only people who have the dlc and make comments about their campaigns can post otherwise you deem it as unworthy.

The thread title is "desert kingdoms dlc pack" just to remind you so I believe comments like "this dlc is just cut and paste""should be a mod""is CA milking a cash cow?" are fine. Otherwise you start entering the realm of the petty/pedantic.

Moreover anyone coming to this thread for the first time and wants info should be given both sides of the argument so they can make an "informed" opinion.

p.s you think am unfriendly for being honest (and brutally honest maybe) so be it. The points are made now so we can move on! I have nothing further to say. And if you are going to accuse me of repeating myself I'd say thats pretty hypocritical as other people have said the same things over and over again just from a "positive" stance.

[Alwyn]

You seem to think therefore that only people who have the dlc and make comments about their campaigns can post otherwise you deem it as unworthy.

No, I wasn't claiming that only people who have the DLC can comment on it. I was hoping to engage you in a friendly conversation about Desert Kingdoms. You seem to have interpreted my friendly questions as a hostile act, with pre-emptive accusations of being petty/pedantic and hypocritical:

The thread title is "desert kingdoms dlc pack" just to remind you so I believe comments like "this dlc is just cut and paste""should be a mod""is CA milking a cash cow?" are fine. Otherwise you start entering the realm of the petty/pedantic.

Moreover anyone coming to this thread for the first time and wants info should be given both sides of the argument so they can make an "informed" opinion.

p.s you think am unfriendly for being honest (and brutally honest maybe) so be it. The points are made now so we can move on! I have nothing further to say. And if you are going to accuse me of repeating myself I'd say thats pretty hypocritical as other people have said the same things over and over again just from a "positive" stance.

I'm not saying that the problem is that people who don't like the DLC are repeating themselves while people who do like the DLC aren't. My concern is that people who come to TWC hoping for a friendly conversation will be driven away when every conversation is dragged into a discussion of the same complaints. I'm not saying that your criticisms are 'unworthy' or that you're not allowed to make them. As I said, I was hoping that you'd demonstrate that you were willing to talk about something other than your complaints about the game - and to get the thread back on track at the same time.

[Welsh Dragon]

No, I wasn't claiming that only people who have the DLC can comment on it. I was hoping to engage you in a friendly conversation about Desert Kingdoms. You seem to have interpreted my friendly questions as a hostile act, with pre-emptive accusations of being petty/pedantic and hypocritical:



I'm not saying that the problem is that people who don't like the DLC are repeating themselves while people who do like the DLC aren't. My concern is that people who come to TWC hoping for a friendly conversation will be driven away when every conversation is dragged into a discussion of the same complaints. I'm not saying that your criticisms are 'unworthy' or that you're not allowed to make them. As I said, I was hoping that you'd demonstrate that you were willing to talk about something other than your complaints about the game - and to get the thread back on track at the same time.

I agree Alwyn.

It's perfectly possible for people with widely differing views to have a friendly conversation, as long as a basic level of mutual respect is maintained.

Unfortunately, when you have someone who repeatedly dismisses other people's points of view; repeatedly tries to discredit other users by accusing them of having an agenda or working for CA; uses insinuation to further defame people; accuses people of bias and a lack of objectivity whilst ignoring their own; and even resorts to Private Messages to post abuse and accusations, even after having been reported to moderators and specifically requested not to do so, it becomes very difficult to have a conversation, as that basic level of respect is missing. @Totalheadache you have done all of these things, and so is it any wonder that others have concerns about the unfriendly atmosphere that such actions help to create.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Welsh Dragon]

TO MODERATORS: Sorry for the double post. When I tried to post this as part of the previous message, the site kept blocking the post and I have no idea why.


Alwyn, you also posed some interesting questions, so here's my answers.

How is your Desert Kingdoms campaign going

Pretty interesting. I'm about 120 turns into a Masaesyli campaign and it's proving to be quite the challenge. I faced an early struggle to secure and expand in North Africa, trying to pick off Carthage's client states while avoiding all out war with them. Moving onwards into Iberia then required a total rethink of my military strategies after several of my armies that had done well against the Punic factions were slaughtered by the Iberians. And now that I've secured Iberia and am pushing into Gaul I'm facing another new round of challenges, as the ever expanding Gallic Confederation (originally Arverni) are fielding a lot of good infantry and in large numbers. My most recent battle was a titanic tussle involving 8 armies (4 on each side, though mine were already weakened from earlier battles) and some 15,000 soldiers (with me outnumbered 8760 vs 6626) with me desperately trying to hold two river crossings against a seemingly endless horde of Gauls. It proved to be a 32 minute epic and probably one of the most intense battles I've fought in Rome 2 or any Total War. (This is all vanilla by the way.)

That one battle has also proved the turning point in the whole war, because while my casualties were terrible, so were the Gallic Confederations. Since then I've been able to rally my survivors and bring up reinforcements to push into Gallic Confederation territory from the south, whilst the Germanic Tribes who were also at war with the Gallic Confederation are pushing in from the East. So from the Gallic Confederation being a major regional power, they've now been pushed back to just one fortified settlement, all because of a single crucial battle that decided the fate of both their empire and mine. Great fun!

Which Desert Kingdoms faction did you choose to play first?

I chose Masaesyli, but as I confederated very early I've been playing Numidia for most of it (which I think is a very cool feature. Forming the historic kingdom of "Numidia" is much more immersive than just being "Desert Confederation" or something.)

What do you see as the main challenges with playing this faction?

Well a big one for me was adapting to a cavalry heavy playstyle, as I usually play infantry focused factions.

Apart from that, another is in their roster's strengths and weaknesses. Masaesyli really are a "glass cannon" faction. So while they can do a lot of damage in a short period, especially with their skirmisher cavalry, they also don't really have the staying power of for example a Hoplite/Pike heavy Hellenic faction. Learning to do as much damage as you can in the limited time before your infantry battleline collapses is I think one of the biggest challenges of this faction. I haven't developed the technology yet to adopt the Romanised units Masaesyli have access to later on, so I'm going to be interested to see how they work and what effect they have on my tactics. (Certainly wouldn't mind having some Legionaries to take on these Gauls, that's for sure!)

And in the campaign early expansion can be difficult. While you have two neighbours who share your culture and can confederate with, you also have a wall of Punic factions with Carthage, Nova Carthago and Libya all standing between you and the Mediterranean. And by the time you have secured your homelands, whichever direction you choose to expand in you'll probably be going up against some well established empires (in my case Gaul, Suebi, Massilia, Seleucids, Kush and a Hellenic powerblock of Sparta, Macedon, Epirus and allies.)

All in all, a fun challenge.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Alwyn]

Thanks, Welsh Dragon!

It does seem that the Masaesyli have a challenging start, with so many Carthaginian client states around (and mighty Carthage looming in the background) - and an even more challenging middle game, with well established empires confronting you. I can relate to the problem of seeing my armies which did well against one culture being slaughtered by the armies of another, it's happening in my Carthage campaign too.

That 32-minute river crossing battle sounds epic, indeed! It's a nice touch that it was the turning point, despite your heavy losses - they didn't die in vain! Yes, confederating is a cool feature - particularly in this case, since Numudia existed historically. Reading your thoughts makes me want to try a campaign as the Masaesyli/Numidia.

I hope that more Desert Kingdoms players will post your experiences.

[eXistenZ]

While I don't condone personal attacks, it also impossible to have a conversation with people who dismiss any form of criticism and make up the most pathetic excuses for them to wave it away. I can easily admit that there are some good things CA does/ in rome 2. In my view however the negatives far outweigh the positives. Maybe not in number, but definitly in priorities.

But some people can't admit there are (many) faults (still present) in rome 2, as it is perfect in their eyes; and put themself in insane, unlogical bends to defend that. Than you don't have to be surprised you are viewed as having an agenda being a CA representative.

[Daruwind]

While I don't condone personal attacks, it also impossible to have a conversation with people who dismiss any form of criticism and make up the most pathetic excuses for them to wave it away. I can easily admit that there are some good things CA does/ in rome 2. In my view however the negatives far outweigh the positives. Maybe not in number, but definitly in priorities.

But some people can't admit there are (many) faults (still present) in rome 2, as it is perfect in their eyes; and put themself in insane, unlogical bends to defend that. Than you don't have to be surprised you are viewed as having an agenda being a CA representative.

And we can easily admit there are still even big fauls. For example CA broke again AI in siege in latest hotfix But still for us positives outweigh negatives. ;-)

See, in our last discussion I had the very same impression. That you alter numbers in insane, unlogical way to attack game however suits you. And when I provided numbers, well you was silent...almost like having agenda against the game ;-) SO let´s agree to disagree and not calling agendas or being paid by whatever (in any case, looks like i missed all my money from CA )

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I miss my pay cheque too.

They working on the broken siege battle ai, which should be improved with the hotfix (defending breaches):

Hi @MarcusluniusBrutus

We are aware of this issue and are currently investigating this.

Kind Regards,

CA_Nate

[Totalheadache]

No, I wasn't claiming that only people who have the DLC can comment on it. I was hoping to engage you in a friendly conversation about Desert Kingdoms. You seem to have interpreted my friendly questions as a hostile act, with pre-emptive accusations of being petty/pedantic and hypocritical:



I'm not saying that the problem is that people who don't like the DLC are repeating themselves while people who do like the DLC aren't. My concern is that people who come to TWC hoping for a friendly conversation will be driven away when every conversation is dragged into a discussion of the same complaints. I'm not saying that your criticisms are 'unworthy' or that you're not allowed to make them. As I said, I was hoping that you'd demonstrate that you were willing to talk about something other than your complaints about the game - and to get the thread back on track at the same time.

Erm not quite sure why you insuinating am trying to be unfriendly etc. It seems you want to paint me in a certain light or as a trouble-maker.

I'd rather you didn't thanks! Sure id have a friendly chat about the campaign if I was still playing Rome2..have put enough hours into it already

At some point will get thrones of Brittania and Warhammer 2 but only @xmas most likely in a sale.��

P.s Existenze sees my point. There's no point having discussions with people unable to accept any criticism. (Some here do). This is not meant to be any kind of personal attack just stating facts as I see them.

Put another way if all I did was criticise constantly the series I'd expect people to say I wasn't being objective etc. It's common sense.

[Welsh Dragon]

While I don't condone personal attacks, it also impossible to have a conversation with people who dismiss any form of criticism and make up the most pathetic excuses for them to wave it away. I can easily admit that there are some good things CA does/ in rome 2. In my view however the negatives far outweigh the positives. Maybe not in number, but definitly in priorities.

But some people can't admit there are (many) faults (still present) in rome 2, as it is perfect in their eyes; and put themself in insane, unlogical bends to defend that. Than you don't have to be surprised you are viewed as having an agenda being a CA representative.

Not finding something to be a fault, or not giving as much weight to an issue as another person is not the same as not being willing or able to admit faults exist. Rome 2 has faults, just like any other game. It is not perfect (but then what is,) and I don't recall ever seeing anyone claim otherwise. But it also has a lot going for it. So for some of us (like me) the positives far outweigh the negatives, while for others (like you) it appears to be the opposite.

Some of the claims made in this and other threads against Rome 2 and CA are to some of us just as "insane" and "illogical" as those you say we make to defend the game. I mean just in this thread alone we've had claims that the new factions are "cut content" (when anyone who was playing the game prior to the most recent patch can clearly see it wasn't just by comparing the factions then and now); that we're being charged again for content we already bought (when you can easily verify we clearly aren't by just checking the details of the playable factions included in the base game price, and thus what you actually paid for); and that the new content is "just copy and paste" (when you just have to play the new factions or even just watch somebody else playing to see plenty of new stuff.)

But disagreeing on something doesn't justify accusing people of having an agenda or being paid to hold an opinion. Making such accusations achieves nothing, because they then just make the discussion about the accusation and the person making it/being accused, rather than the topic at hand. I'd also argue it weakens a person's argument to

[eXistenZ]

And we can easily admit there are still even big fauls. For example CA broke again AI in siege in latest hotfix But still for us positives outweigh negatives. ;-)

See, in our last discussion I had the very same impression. That you alter numbers in insane, unlogical way to attack game however suits you. And when I provided numbers, well you was silent...almost like having agenda against the game ;-) SO let´s agree to disagree and not calling agendas or being paid by whatever (in any case, looks like i missed all my money from CA )

Excuse me, but I have never altered numbers (unlike the person that randomly guessed which percentage played DEI and which didn't). I gave reasons why some numbers are less relevant or important compared to others. My main argument was that faction dlc (and their ratings) can not be compared to campaign expansions. Given the price tag of both, even CA makes this difference, but some people cant admit to that, because it doesnt fit in their "CA is doing an amazing job" story. Then it ends for me there. And the pathetic excuses that come up sometimes don't make the case any better. For example the diplomatic mission was/is flatout broken. And then some people said "oh well they can't test everything". No that is totally the wrong attitude. it's not up to us to discover bugs, and it certainly is up to CA to make sure that if they decide to revisit an older title, they actually put the effort in and do it properly. or the "you can't criticise like that, it's demoralizing for CA employees". Excuse me? they deliver a subpar product, get paid for it, but we arent allowed to point that out?


Likewise, if you value a different skin on your general or some factions, higher than actual in depth gameplay (or at least one that hasn't got several major bugs in it or an AI that is still blatantly incompetent after 4 years). I see no use in trying to have a discussion with those people, who actually are maybe better off buying a comic book rather than a video game, as they obviously value pretty pictures over what is more important, namely gameplay.
Just because you are starving for historical content, you dont have to be gratefull they throw litterally any piece of poo at you. on the contrary, if anything, it should be the best content yet, and obviously that isn't the case (butt offcours, some people deny thisdespite everything poining in that direction).

@Marcus_Iunius: well, I hope they investigate the starving AI armies who are constantly bend over in forced march, eager to be ambushed, as well. It's not like it's a recent issue....

[Welsh Dragon]

Excuse me, but I have never altered numbers (unlike the person that randomly guessed which percentage played DEI and which didn't). I gave reasons why some numbers are less relevant or important compared to others. My main argument was that faction dlc (and their ratings) can not be compared to campaign expansions. Given the price tag of both, even CA makes this difference, but some people cant admit to that, because it doesnt fit in their "CA is doing an amazing job" story. Then it ends for me there. And the pathetic excuses that come up sometimes don't make the case any better. For example the diplomatic mission was/is flatout broken. And then some people said "oh well they can't test everything". No that is totally the wrong attitude. it's not up to us to discover bugs, and it certainly is up to CA to make sure that if they decide to revisit an older title, they actually put the effort in and do it properly. or the "you can't criticise like that, it's demoralizing for CA employees". Excuse me? they deliver a subpar product, get paid for it, but we arent allowed to point that out?

The issue with Diplomatic Missions being broken (it literally being impossible to get a critical success,) was not only acknowledged as an issue, but people were actually encouraged to bring this to CA's attention. Which it apparently was, seeing as it was fixed in the next patch.

And the point I was making before was not to say "you can't criticise like that, it's demoralizing for CA employees." It was to say "if you are going to criticise, try to do so in a constructive manner" and if possible "include something positive too." Don't just tell them what you don't like, but tell them what you do. That way when they look at your feedback they can see which areas you think are working and which need improvement. Instead of "I hate everything." That way they come away from reading your feedback encouraged about what works, and motivated to improve what doesn't, instead of demoralised.

I mean if you genuinely can't find anything at all to like about the new content then that's really unfortunate. But then again they can't please everyone and that's why they have the opt-in to earlier patches, so if you really hate the latest version you don't have to play it.

Likewise, if you value a different skin on your general or some factions, higher than actual in depth gameplay (or at least one that hasn't got several major bugs in it or an AI that is still blatantly incompetent after 4 years). I see no use in trying to have a discussion with those people, who actually are maybe better off buying a comic book rather than a video game, as they obviously value pretty pictures over what is more important, namely gameplay.
Just because you are starving for historical content, you dont have to be gratefull they throw litterally any piece of poo at you. on the contrary, if anything, it should be the best content yet, and obviously that isn't the case (butt offcours, some people deny thisdespite everything poining in that direction).

Graphics are actually one of my least important features in a game, and I spend most of the battles zoomed out as I like to be in overall command of my army/navy.

You also seem to be assuming that just because someone likes the new content, they don't value gameplay. Thing is, we value gameplay too! Things like the Power & Politics overhaul, the new political and diplomatic options and events brought in by the latest patch, and new playable factions and a new campaigns adds a lot of "in depth gameplay" to the game for us. It may not be the sort of gameplay you specifically want, but that doesn't make it "poo" just because you "poo poo" it.

And as I've previously said Empire Divided is one of my all time favourite campaigns in Total War, and Desert Kingdoms is probably one of the best Culture Packs I've played. I'm loving my current Masaesyli campaign. You said it should be the best content yet, and in my view it's right up there.

@Marcus_Iunius: well, I hope they investigate the starving AI armies who are constantly bend over in forced march, eager to be ambushed, as well. It's not like it's a recent issue....

And I'm still having difficulty finding many examples of this starving AI armies in my own campaigns. When I have found a starving AI it's been easy to track back the reason for this to the loss of food producing settlements due to player or AI action (or in one case slums.) AI over reliance on Forced March is an issue at times, though I seem to encounter it less often these days. I also quite like the idea suggested on these forums by someone (think it might have been Alwyn,) that the chance of an army being attacked in Forced March triggering an ambush battle be reduced to say 50% instead of the current 100%. That may be a way to address it without removing forced march entirely.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Daruwind]

Excuse me, but I have never altered numbers (unlike the person that randomly guessed which percentage played DEI and which didn't). I gave reasons why some numbers are less relevant or important compared to others. My main argument was that faction dlc (and their ratings) can not be compared to campaign expansions. Given the price tag of both, even CA makes this difference, but some people cant admit to that, because it doesnt fit in their "CA is doing an amazing job" story. Then it ends for me there. And the pathetic excuses that come up sometimes don't make the case any better. For example the diplomatic mission was/is flatout broken. And then some people said "oh well they can't test everything". No that is totally the wrong attitude. it's not up to us to discover bugs, and it certainly is up to CA to make sure that if they decide to revisit an older title, they actually put the effort in and do it properly.

-Number of people playing with mods and without is from CA. That´s only solid number we have. Not even 1/3 with mods! https://www.totalwar.com/blog/mod-in...esert-kingdoms

As nearly a third of users use mods for ROME II

-No altered numbers, only my own estimation as I stated!! And it was quite in favour for DEI and other overhaul mods as not everybody is using big mods like DEI (myself, Welsch,You...) (argument was about new patch/content breaking especially complex/big mods) So I´m delibaretely weakening my own position in discussion!!! ;-) So why exactly estimating 20% from these 30% of all mods users for DIE+other big overhaul mods is bad number?..giving DEI too much credits?!? So actually less people use mods/more mods/more complex mods?!? ;-) I simply don´t understand what is the problem....estimation? Arguing for the sack of arguing and disagreement?

yes, lets cut from 30% to 20% in a heartbeat with a faulty reasoning cause that helps the point comes accross beter.... I don't even play DEI and I consider myself not a heavy modder.

-I explicitely gave comparison for ED with other campaigns and DK with other faction DLC for R2. But you are the one bringing in WH and puzzling things..
Hannibal - 68% out of 82
Gaul - 77% out of 83
Wrath - 57% out of 431
Empire Divided - 60% out of 576

Nomadic - 60% out of 52
Greeks - 63% out of 195
Pirates - 64% out of 59
Black Sea - 74% out of 81
Desert Kingdoms - 85% out of 105!!! (old number 69)

I just checked WH DLCs as well:
17,5EU Tag
TK - 86% out of 1209 - no campaign
Wood Elves - 70% out of 739 + campaign
Beastmen - 59% out of 1120 + campaign

9,99EU Tag
Norsca - 82% out of 590 - no campaign
Chaos Warrior - 43% out of 834 - no campaign

7,5EU Tag
Kings/Warlords - 84% out of 431 - no campaign
Grim/Grave - 74% out of 533 - no campaign

-empire divided is a very poor expansion. Considering gameplay is the most important, and it was supposed to be the big comeback for rome 2, this is very dissapointing. And in the meantime, the gameplay dlc for WH2 is rated 20% higher. I don't understand why it is so hard to admit the fact that a) Empire Divided is poor, and b) CA can do a lot of better if they put effort in

So I dont employ double standard...

-you can not compare a campaign pack from warhammer to a campaign pack for Rome 2, but you can compare faction dlc to campaign packs......

You even put in bold the terrible rating ED got (especialy compared to Warhammer expansions),

My conclusion from numbers:
1) ED is at worst an average R2 campaign pack with solid proof stats, definitely not poor expansion as you said....such total failure is like 20-40% and less.
2) DK looks like the best faction DLC for R2 now with better statistics to all except Greek one but with the best percentage rivalling that of WH DLCs.
3) DK has similar rating to WH faction DLC except Chaos, which was preorder for WH1 and it is objectively the weakest faction...well with all patches not so bad now :-) Kings/Warlords, Grim/Grave, Norsca,TK
4) ED has similar rating to Beastmen and is slighty behind Wood Elves, but you are right TK are much better even without campaign itself

*5) I was always careful not giving lower stats bigger impact than to bigger size of stats. Bigger stats size = more reliable percentage.
rating - percentage , stats/statisctics - number of reviews

[eXistenZ]

Ive already made an extensive topic/post why power and politics is incredibly poor in comparison to what CA is capable of (something both steam reviews and professional reviews agree with me on), and what easy steps could have been taken to improve it if CA bothered to put effort in. So the criticism is constructive, only CA (and some people here) rather put their fingers in their ears. Just as when I explain its not so easy to "just roll back", but for every piece of legit criticism, there is always an excuse. Just like you do now. "yes the AI is still being very prone to ambush (4 years later, most AAA games are developped in that time, but apparently a fix for this is way harder...), but I like idea X and maybe CA can do that". No offense, but that doesnt improve the current situation one bit, and is basicly just surrendering to poor bussines practices, as I am willing to bet CA won't imply the proposed idea, or any other fix.

If you consider faction dlc worthwile gameplay, here is a tip: try some faction mods for free......

Also, if the AI wasnt starving all the time, Dresden probably wouldnt have made a mod that has a five star rating, but sure you probably dont see it happening in your game...

[Daruwind]

Also, if the AI wasnt starving all the time, Dresden probably wouldnt have made a mod that has a five star rating, but sure you probably dont see it happening in your game...

So you are saying that anybody who has this problem with starving can already solve it with Dresden small fix....so why exactly it is such crucial problem?

My definition of problem is beach landing where ships are staying at beach. Show me mod addressing that...

Your example can be fix with mods and surely there are people who do see it as problem (so are using mods) or don´t have problem with situation. Only if player does see it as problematic yet refuse to use mods,then I aknowlegde it as a bug for such person yet there is already available solution.... But that is the point, for every person ,different aspects of game matters at different scale with different urgency...

[eXistenZ]

Because it isnt the job of modders to fix basic issues? that I even have to say this shows how bad it has become.....

Yes, this is fixed in a mod, but a ) shouldnt be necessary, and b) only still works because Dresden updated his mod cause CA didnt bother to fix the issue in their update.... Which you know, is only their job....


Also I mainly showcased the mod because WD apparently doesnt think starving AI is a problem/ very visible. The fact that this is one of the most popular mods, shows otherwise. And it is only one of the problems that are still present. And yes, not everything can be fixed by mods, making it even more painfull that CA only worsened the situation

[Daruwind]

Because it isnt the job of modders to fix basic issues? that I even have to say this shows how bad it has become.....

Yes, this is fixed in a mod, but a ) shouldnt be necessary, and b) only still works because Dresden updated his mod cause CA didnt bother to fix the issue in their update.... Which you know, is only their job....


Also I mainly showcased the mod because WD apparently doesnt think starving AI is a problem/ very visible. The fact that this is one of the most popular mods, shows otherwise. And it is only one of the problems that are still present. And yes, not everything can be fixed by mods, making it even more painfull that CA only worsened the situation

1) Mod is updated 2) easily accessible and well known ....so while you present it as failure of CA we simply don´t have problem at all . At least pick a problem which has 1) no mod fix 2)mod fix is not updated ...that´s real problem you cannot even solve with mods!!

EDIT: and yep, it is bug/problem. And yep, can be easily solvable by CA. But at the same time we have a fix..so it is not gamebreaking If you will try to respond, please try to argue with this statement. I want to see where is fault in my argumentation...

BTW: I would prefer response to my previous lenghty post. Your silence means you admit I´m right with numbers and argumentation...

[Welsh Dragon]

Because it isnt the job of modders to fix basic issues? that I even have to say this shows how bad it has become.....

Yes, this is fixed in a mod, but a ) shouldnt be necessary, and b) only still works because Dresden updated his mod cause CA didnt bother to fix the issue in their update.... Which you know, is only their job....


Also I mainly showcased the mod because WD apparently doesnt think starving AI is a problem/ very visible. The fact that this is one of the most popular mods, shows otherwise. And it is only one of the problems that are still present. And yes, not everything can be fixed by mods, making it even more painfull that CA only worsened the situation

Sigh...

What I said was:

And I'm still having difficulty finding many examples of this starving AI armies in my own campaigns. When I have found a starving AI it's been easy to track back the reason for this to the loss of food producing settlements due to player or AI action (or in one case slums.)

Which is still the case. I've just fired up random saves from my last few campaigns, (Vanilla Masaesyli GC, Vanilla Rome HatG, Vanilla Palmyra ED, and my ongoing lightly modded Nervii CiG campaign I'm using for my AAR, all Hard/Hard) and panned across the whole map checking every AI army and navy I can see. And of the dozens and dozens of armies and navies I've checked, the only one starving was Cyrenaica in my Masaesyli GC, because I've taken their only settlement and so they have no way to feed their soldiers.

I'm not doubting that this is an issue others have encountered and that may still be present in the game even now. All I'm doing is relating my own experiences and the fact that I personally cannot find this issue in my recent campaigns even when specifically looking for it. And it makes me wonder what the variables are, and what's different between my game and those having problems. (The ones that come to mind are difficulty level, faction, campaign, and mod use, though there are bound to be more.)

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Daruwind]

And it makes me wonder what the variables are, and what's different between my game and those having problems. (The ones that come to mind are difficulty level, faction, campaign, and mod use, though there are bound to be more.)

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

I have some theories. 1)updates,bug fixes are not all the time very well propagated into save games. I try to start a new campaign to limit such problems. 2)sticking to older patch/version where problem is present 3)big mods/compilations. If mods are just updated but not rebuilded some bugs can appear. For example I use scripts for my victory conditions modification..to alter startpost....yet for some time I forgot CA added new playable factions so my mod basically alter only some factions MY bad..bud modders are also only people.