Is there a way to disable the AOR system?

[JCB206]

The OP has a point. I think I'll limit that for myself too.

Realistic or not, historical or not, it's more fun to fight thematical national armies than just no-name bands of all kinds of AoR stuff/

Ahistorically it would likely be a fun campaign. I would play once or twice.

[Don_Diego]

Yes its "way more fun" to just use one type of core unit and ignore all the cultural variety and interesting units across the map...

I know lets cut out all those unique, detailed units we have created over the years as apparently they are all made up!

[JCB206]

Yes its "way more fun" to just use one type of core unit and ignore all the cultural variety and interesting units across the map...

I know lets cut out all those unique, detailed units we have created over the years as apparently they are all made up!

Its been done. Vanilla.

[Vulpes.Inculta]

You guys are so into eradicating the very idea with every argument possible, does it offend your religion or something?

If the AI really doesn't build barracks and doesn't use his national troops, or like 10% of the armies and the rest are random AoR chaff, then to hell with this, I don't like it.

And I'm pretty sure it's not much historical, but surely the professional historians in this thread know better.

[JCB206]

You guys are so into eradicating the very idea with every argument possible, does it offend your religion or something?

If the AI really doesn't build barracks and doesn't use his national troops, or like 10% of the armies and the rest are random AoR chaff, then to hell with this, I don't like it.

And I'm pretty sure it's not much historical, but surely the professional historians in this thread know better.

If you want a less historical mod, then play one. If you want a change to the mod because of gameplay, then make that request. But when someone posts that all these "AoR chaff" (just using your words, but not that you made this statement) get in the way of THEIR idea of a full army of all Romans and the lowly AOR troops are just working the mines or ploughing the fields, then that is not historical, which the OP said 2-3 times in his arguments. The AI is given historical options and it can be a bit random sometimes, but I haven't seen a full stack with only 2 core units and the rest AOR.

I'm not sure how one becomes a professional historian, but many here, KAM included, have either finished a history degree or are working on one. And some will get a job with that degree, but I guess we need to write a book for you?

Nice addition to thread BTW.

EDIT: We are all human and not perfect. Please feel free to correct me if my post is not historically correct.

[Dresden]

You guys are so into eradicating the very idea with every argument possible, does it offend your religion or something?

If the AI really doesn't build barracks and doesn't use his national troops, or like 10% of the armies and the rest are random AoR chaff, then to hell with this, I don't like it.

And I'm pretty sure it's not much historical, but surely the professional historians in this thread know better.

If anything the AI builds too many barracks.

I am not sure what you mean by offend us, I thought I was fairly level headed and even provided ways to mod it out for those who want a submod. I would like others to try out what its like being us for a few days. Work on a mod project for over four years and then have to defend all the choices you have made over those years every single day. Have people constantly come question why you did this or that, what is the purpose of x, is y historical, what idiot designed z? Do that every day for years and then I would like to see how most people react on a daily basis dealing with it. I think we are pretty calm about the situation and as helpful as possible.

[JCB206]

If anything the AI builds too many barracks.

I am not sure what you mean by offend us, I thought I was fairly level headed and even provided ways to mod it out for those who want a submod. I would like others to try out what its like being us for a few days. Work on a mod project for over four years and then have to defend all the choices you have made over those years every single day. Have people constantly come question why you did this or that, what is the purpose of x, is y historical, what idiot designed z? Do that every day for years and then I would like to see how most people react on a daily basis dealing with it. I think we are pretty calm about the situation and as helpful as possible.

Y'all have very thick skin. There is no way for us to ever show out appreciation and I can't play another mod after being spoiled by this team. Sometimes I think about modding things my own way, but where is the fun in that. History is not fair. Thank you DEI team!

BTW @KAM, I turned off the deadly cavalry mod, your improvements have been noted. Thanks

[Damocles]

If anything the AI builds too many barracks.

I've always attributed this to the AI being compelled to build at least one barracks, and the AI that conquers them never destroying it.

You know. There are ways where I wouldn't mind it if CA let the AI cheat. Like giving them automatic building plans or letting them create field armies out of thin air by having their treasury be deducted.

It's always mystified me where CA encourages the AI to cheat, even when it hampers the game (like the show that diplomacy becomes when you really only want them to have more troops and money), and where they refuse to (making the AI fumble through the building chains).

[KAM 2150]

The thing is that AI does build barracks in nearly every province and mostly uses core units with 4-6 AOR ones.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

You guys are so into eradicating the very idea with every argument possible, does it offend your religion or something?

If the AI really doesn't build barracks and doesn't use his national troops, or like 10% of the armies and the rest are random AoR chaff, then to hell with this, I don't like it.

And I'm pretty sure it's not much historical, but surely the professional historians in this thread know better.

Because there is no real issue, the AI makes smart use of the AOR system and has balanced armies...Well that's why...

[meerkatology]

at least as romans. aoe infantry is always worse than my core units , or even auxiliaries.

i make them for immediate reinforcements as one would do in history. they accurately have lower morale except for a few exceptions. i think spanish loricati scurtarii probaly a bit too powerful for an aor unit. but otherwise most of them are light/medium units to supplement ur army rather than form the core.

if u want a harder slower paced expansion u can always use hardcore mod its quite great.

esp for factions that dont have its own auxiliary roster, having aor units really adds alot more flavor.

[Vulpes.Inculta]

I don't really care about correcting you, man, I'm happy to be wrong here, haven't played too deep into the recent version of the mod, Im just judging by the words of the OP. And if what KAM says is true, I'm all good about it.

You JCB206 do sound like an angry fanboy that would deny any criticims of his object of adoration. That's all, cheers!

[JCB206]

You JCB206 do sound like an angry fanboy that would deny any criticims of his object of adoration. That's all, cheers!

A fanboy of history I am. Not angry at all.

Not defending the mod in total. The DEI team and myself don’t agree on everything, as my post history will defend. But this is a mod based on historical accuracy and does not stray unless it needs to change for gameplay reasons. There are many examples of that. That and the teams relentless work ethic is why this is the best mod out there.

If you don’t like something, you can post here and say why it should be this way or that. You can post it is a game play reason or a historical one. And then your side and others will do the same.

The OP used terms such as “historical precedent”, mentioned that Roman reforms are for gameplay reasons, mentions that Bruttian infantry and Taratine cavalry are the “only really historically accurate Italiac units” and so forth. Just posting what I have read to why these historical inaccuracies are not inaccurate at all.

I see where he is going with the conversation. He wants some regions to have unique units, f.e. Tarantine Cavalry, that are special. There are such units that should be special, though taratine cavalry is a bad example as they were not a unit but a type of cavalry at this time. And the originals may already be better in he mod IDK. He wants it to be harder to recruit new units so fast. That makes sense and I agree. That is more of a gameplay reason though as I think 12+ would reasonable but that is 3 years in gameplay, which may be too long IDK.

Rambling again...if someone gets in here and asks “where are the pikemen for Carthage? Why does Macedon have short pike units? Why are Peltasts lmedium infantry and not light? Why don’t the Spartans have Corinthian helmets? Why is Athens roster filled with Allied and Mercenary units?”, then I will attempt to give some historical statements because that is my love, my future job, and because some may like to learn it.

Don’t want AOR units because of gameplay, just say that. The team didn’t agree and gave advice on how to mod it out. I wanted no barracks at all and all units recruited form the main building lines, they told me to use a submod. It happens.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

I don't really care about correcting you, man, I'm happy to be wrong here, haven't played too deep into the recent version of the mod, Im just judging by the words of the OP. And if what KAM says is true, I'm all good about it.

You JCB206 do sound like an angry fanboy that would deny any criticims of his object of adoration. That's all, cheers!

We really don't appreciate personal remarks on this Forum.

[Dardo21]

Keep your personal remarks off the forum, if you had known JCB then you would know that pretty much 70 % of the arguments and suggestions come from him these days, so him being a fanboy who doesn't want to criticize the mod is non-sensical.

[JCB206]

Keep your personal remarks off the forum, if you had known JCB then you would know that pretty much 70 % of the arguments and suggestions come from him these days, so him being a fanboy who doesn't want to criticize the mod is non-sensical.

Didn’t see your response before my last remark. Cheers Dardo

[popovic]

Mod it out yourself.
And then share it at the submod forum, so someone else can use it.

[Dresden]

I think a lower AOR cap submod would be a welcome addition to the submod forum.

[KAM 2150]

Easiest way to fix the Ai would be to bring at best Rome 1 building/army system or at least Shogun 2 building/army system, since AI was competent how to use it and there were no issues with types of troops recruited as there was no artificial army limit. In Rome 2 you were only limited by your income and population, which is how it should be limited.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Easiest way to fix the Ai would be to bring at best Rome 1 building/army system or at least Shogun 2 building/army system, since AI was competent how to use it and there were no issues with types of troops recruited as there was no artificial army limit. In Rome 2 you were only limited by your income and population, which is how it should be limited.

Better to create another engine...or a new game to tell you the truth.