I realize no one visits this forum anymore, but FoTE is a great mod held back by some glaring and serious battle balance issues.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

I just reread Wallace Breem's incomparable Eagle in the Snow this last week and I reinstalled Attila+FOTE+EP Revised to see if it could scratch my itch.

Regrettably, it did not.

It came close, but ultimately the deeply unsatisfying battle mechanics sank the great roster (especially the Notitia Dignitatum adaptation) and campaign balance work done by the EP submod's creator. Infantry combat feels good for the most part, although the lame and gamey "tier" system kind of takes the player out of any kind of immersive experience. Tier 1 units get shredded by Tier 2 units in seconds, and this isn't really great for battles. Still, compared to the main issues with FoTE's battles, this is a small and manageable problem.

Battles are essentially broken. This is primarily due to two problems --

Firstly, missiles are ludicrously powerful. In an age where archery very rarely decided battles (with exceptions such as Narses' annihilation of Teia's Goths at the very end of the period), missiles of even levy archers do extreme amounts of damage to even heavily armored troops. And given that many Germanic tribes recruit up to as many as 8 missile units per army due to wonky AI priorities, this hurts the mod deeply.

Secondly, perhaps even more critical is the utter uselessness of cavalry. This was an era when the Hunnic mounted warrior dominated Europe, and the Empire developed advanced cataphract forces to counter their gathering foes. Now, the initial cavalry charge is acceptably powerful -- it can be effective to drive home a cavalry charge into enemy foot. The real problem comes in withdrawing -- whereas in Divide et Impera your cavalry can withdraw from combat with a couple casualties to charge anew, as is historically accurate, in Attila ALL of the cavalry die the second you try to withdraw. I have read elsewhere that this is because the absolutely moronic Creative Assembly developers decided to set unit defenses to 0 during movement, but it hardly matters. If you send cavalry into battle, they had better rout the unit or they will all die. This creates a situation where even veteran armies lose all of their cavalry after every battle. I am no rookie in TW -- I win my battles. But the casualties are ridiculous and essentially ruin the balance of any given battle. I have read of this complaint elsewhere but had hoped, in vain, that it would not be present in FoTE.

These two issues essentially take the gritty and bloody history of fifth century combat and turn it into an arcade game. This is more a problem with Attila as a whole, but I feel FoTE comes close to overcoming it -- yet falls short, due to the issues I mentioned above.

A final issue that needs addressing is the constant spawning of massive numbers of artillery units in the rosters of Roman rebels. It is ludicrous when sending the Field Army of Spain to suppress a peasant uprising in Gallaecia and finding that they have 4 cheiroballistas. It encourages a battle where you suicide your already pathetically fragile cavalry onto their artillery in an attempt to mitigate this insane issue. I raised this issue on the Steam page of the EP submod, as well as in a separate thread, but as talented as the modder who made that submod is, he/she seemed unable or unwilling to address this issue. I know it can be addressed, because the insane onager spawn of vanilla has been fixed in FoTE.

I only bring these issues up because I almost always play Divide et Impera, as does everyone else -- but the reason this is so is because Attila is such an arcadey and vanilla experience compared to the perfection found there. Normally I wouldn't care, but I am on a Late Antiquity kick and I felt these concerns needed to be broadcast. I know that others probably play this mod and put it down after an hour due to these issues.

I realize that the playerbase of FoTE is way smaller than DeI, and in fact I'd be surprised if Dresden or anyone like that even sees this. But I kinda needed to vent about how close this game came to scratching the late Roman itch I desperately need scratched -- and why it failed to do so.

If this game ever gets another update, roster upgrades are not the way to go. These issues should probably be the priority, because until then all the glorious Comitatenses in their shining armor will just be sprites sitting on the modders' desktops. That is, until some new player picks up the mod and finds them being shredded by 10 Alemannic archer units in an army of 15 units.

[Cgma]

Tier 1 units get shredded by Tier 2 units in seconds, and this isn't really great for battles. Still, compared to the main issues with FoTE's battles, this is a small and manageable problem.

Well probably i shouldn't do this since you seem not to listen, but ok, let's try again. Tier 1 units are not a problem, they are pretty balanced for either ranged units or cavalry. You just didn't notice that most "tier 1" units are light or medium class what makes them pretty bad against archers. I don't see it unlogical.

Battles are essentially broken.

Broken or just don't meet your taste? That's essentially difference.

Firstly, missiles are ludicrously powerful. In an age where archery very rarely decided battles.

Make better research, there were many battles where ranged units made a difference (not decisive, but pretty annoying enemies), read Ammianus, Procopius, Jordanes and study - for example - siege of Andrianople (after Adrianople's battle). And of course start using formations to make units not fragile vs. arrows. This works even for light ones .

Secondly, perhaps even more critical is the utter uselessness of cavalry. This was an era when the Hunnic mounted warrior dominated Europe

That was an era when authors overestimated hunnic military due to religious interests (like calling Huns "apocalipse raiders"). Especially roman christians. The fact was Huns just harrased settlements with terror then attacked hungry armies that had no aprovisation. Their "brilliant" tactics was just bribing smaller germanic tribes to get infantry which mostly fought for them. Huns, if took part in any battle at all just used massively archers to flank and spread chaos in enemy lines. Whenever they attacked frontally, they lost every single battle. In fact there were very few real battles that clashed Huns vs. Romans or germanic tribes that were not subject to Huns. Romans had their own usurpers' problems so they mostly defended cities, payed tributes or allied with them while germans just stepped back to avoid confrontation.

Empire developed advanced cataphract forces to counter their gathering foes.

Notitia Dignitatum, neither any ancient authors don't support that (false) view. In fact WRE had only one catafract unit, stationing in Britain to be more funny, ERE about 10. Even Clibanarii units were rare (about 15 units totally). Ammianus strictly states that roman tactics vs. Sassanid cavalry was just to avoid them or use obstacles to stop them (like metal nails).

Now, the initial cavalry charge is acceptably powerful -- it can be effective to drive home a cavalry charge into enemy foot. The real problem comes in withdrawing

Engage your foot troops to counter enemies then use cavalry, repeat (if needed at all) and watch easy winning.

I am no rookie in TW -- I win my battles. But the casualties are ridiculous and essentially ruin the balance of any given battle.

Seriously? You seem to be pretty bad in manual battles. You can't observe standard differences between unit classes, you have no idea how to counter siege units, probably use formations wrong way (if at all) and do a lot of complains while none are real problem.

It encourages a battle where you suicide your already pathetically fragile cavalry onto their artillery in an attempt to mitigate this insane issue.

That's why i dare to say you are awful tactician. Try just to engage enemy units then just flank artillery with cavalry. Or just use battle "cheat" to move units out of artillery range so while rest of army starts battle, they will be still crawling their machines for no use. You probably din't even noticed that AI stops shooting artillery when units fight in melee. But i suppose you try (like in vanilla) use 10 units vs. 17 rebel units, so, yes, this might be problematic.

I only bring these issues up because I almost always play Divide et Impera, as does everyone else -- but the reason this is so is because Attila is such an arcadey and vanilla experience compared to the perfection found there. Normally I wouldn't care, but I am on a Late Antiquity kick and I felt these concerns needed to be broadcast. I know that others probably play this mod and put it down after an hour due to these issues.

Rome II mechanics is way different from Attila, any comparison doesn't make sense. And stop minding your own poor gaming in the name of any collectivity. That's pretty lame and i'm in contact with many ppl who enjoy playing this mod (especially FotE+EP revised combo).

If this game ever gets another update, roster upgrades are not the way to go. These issues should probably be the priority, because until then all the glorious Comitatenses in their shining armor will just be sprites sitting on the modders' desktops. That is, until some new player picks up the mod and finds them being shredded by 10 Alemannic archer units in an army of 15 units.

At first - FotE and EP are closed projects, only bugs are fixed. Only FotE + EP Revised is developed still and this is my own, private project which mostly is done to satisfy my taste and way of seeing things, however i spend a lot of time really studying old sources and trying to make the game as balanced as possible. Forcing AI to stop overrecruiting archers is not possible, but it is possible to use VH or Legendary mode to make AI smarter and having enough money to build good armies.
If my way of handling game balance doesn't satisfy your taste then i'm sorry, mind doing your own mod to fix things your way.
Anyway every single old sources state clearly that Alammans, Goths or any other germans were just rabble, not armies, if romans were not able to squish them that was because romans had to engage armies against internal affairs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Benacus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fano
So that what happened with every german "invasion". They entered defenseless territory and spread small detachments who were hard to find and pursuit. In fact romans were still reforming their military from 250 to 496 AD and never finished it, while later ERE didn't have to fight them, so their military went totally other way, still being good enough to trample Vandals and Ostrogoths in one glimpse.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

Dude this was not an attack on you or your work, I love your submod. But the battle balance is all wrong. These are clear problems with the flow of battles, not matters of personal taste.

Regarding ranged weapons, I am well aware of the primary sources of the period. It's my field, in fact. Adrianople was emphatically not decided by missile weapons, nor were the vast majority of the battles of the period. Adrianople was decided by a Gothic cavalry charge rolling up Roman infantry. Strasbourg had a brief missile exchange, but the 6,000 Alemannic dead fell in a direct attack upon the Roman shield-wall of Julian in the center. There is the famous account of the winds blowing missiles back into the faces of Arbogast's men at the Frigidus, but even there the main decision, and vast majority of the casualties, came in close combat. The Battle of Chalons was, as far as we can tell, not decided by missile weapons either, though the sources are unclear -- but the rhetorical devices speak mostly of melee combat for a central hill, and Aetius positioning the Alans in the center (who were armored lancers) suggests that the Hunnic bow was not the arm of decision in the battle. The bow only becomes decisive in the context of A) The Hunnic campaigns of the 440s in the Balkans and B) The Justinianic Byzantine army.

So there's your historical counterpoint. Anyhow, it's all beside the point, because it's just not fun. German armies recruit 8-10 skirmishers, which is certainly not historically accurate and due to the balance of missiles this can actually be ludicrously effective. Don't mistake me -- I am no rookie, I always win. I run them down. But it's not an enjoyable type of battle.

If you aim to defend balance issues based on spurious historical grounds, I beseech you to find me a single historical source for Roman rebels of the Bagaudae class utilizing field artillery at all. Even one. In fact, if you could find an account of a Late Roman battle where a cheiroballista is used at all, I'd be impressed. There is an account of Julian using ballistiarii in the 350s, but it seems clear they are light infantry.

Anyhow, the 3rd century battles you cite are neither here nor there -- I am certainly not questioning Germans raiding Roman territory. I rather like that. In fact, I rather like the entire balance of the campaign map. The main issues I've noticed in the 50 or so turns I've put into my WRE campaign are in terms of the tactical battles themselves.

And to be clear, I love your mod. You seem really aggrieved by this -- EP is a masterwork of campaign balance and I really enjoy the strategic layer. It is a step up from Rome II. But the battles are totally wacky and just feel wrong.

Anyhow, the missile issue and the artillery issue are fairly minor compared to the problem of the cavalry. That's really what kills the sense of Late Antiquity that I think FoTE is very close to achieving. Cavalry feels fragile in a way it really should not.

Let me emphasize again that this was not a criticism of the work you've done -- I was careful to remark upon how impressive all of your work is in my original post, and I still feel that way. Your roster work especially is god-tier. Love the custom Comitatenses.

Edit: Anyhow, put aside the rest. It was not my intent to provoke a full-throated defense of every aspect of FoTE+EP, most of which is pretty great. As I said, I think a nearly perfect experience is handicapped by one major and two fairly minor issues. Really, public enemy number one is the inability to withdraw cavalry from combat without ahistorical and somewhat ludicrous casualties. If the mechanics of withdrawal were in line with Rome II or, God willing, DeI, I think the rest of it would be very minor indeed.

But I realize that is a vanilla issue. I would not know how to fix it, which is why I made the post.

[asher237]

I mean... Cgma literally brought this mod back to life by himself. I think the work he has done is commendable and I rather enjoy playing the Roman Empire, both East and West. The scripted events make the RP totally worth it. If you don't like something, use the PFM, it is rather easy.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

I mean... Cgma literally brought this mod back to life by himself. I think the work he has done is commendable and I rather enjoy playing the Roman Empire, both East and West. The scripted events make the RP totally worth it. If you don't like something, use the PFM, it is rather easy.

Yeah I love all that stuff. I stated my admiration for the campaign layer multiple times throughout this thread. As well as for the rosters. Battle balance is wacky though, and I am hopefully that the cavalry issue especially is one that can be solved.

[chriswhr]

I still come to the forums from time to time.

[Dresden]

In terms of the campaign AI unit selection settings, I think for FotE its actually left as vanilla. Its possible EP changes that I am not sure.

[Cgma]

In terms of the campaign AI unit selection settings, I think for FotE its actually left as vanilla. Its possible EP changes that I am not sure.

EP does nothing about it, FotE does partially (unit generation priority is tought), but from what i know the more mods try to interfere the more archers come to armies. Or dog handlers.

[Leminh1988]

Did anyone notice all of the Celt Late infantry have the Flame throwing spear which one shot everything? Combine that with guriella deployment and they are invincible . Sorry for my bad English .

[Cgma]

But the battle balance is wrong

All i can understand is you're trying to force me to make your personal mod that will realize your point of view (or make battles easier because you can't handle them). That doesn't work this way.

Adrianople was decided by a Gothic cavalry charge rolling up Roman infantry.

You just still don't even bother to read, i clearly mentioned defending the city, not battle itself. There is even mentioned defenders broke missiles to be not used by Goths in recurse.

Strasbourg had a brief missile exchange, but the 6,000 Alemannic dead fell in a direct attack upon the Roman shield-wall of Julian in the center. There is the famous account of the winds blowing missiles back into the faces of Arbogast's men at the Frigidus, but even there the main decision, and vast majority of the casualties, came in close combat. The Battle of Chalons was, as far as we can tell, not decided by missile weapons either, though the sources are unclear -- but the rhetorical devices speak mostly of melee combat for a central hill, and Aetius positioning the Alans in the center (who were armored lancers) suggests that the Hunnic bow was not the arm of decision in the battle. The bow only becomes decisive in the context of A) The Hunnic campaigns of the 440s in the Balkans and B) The Justinianic Byzantine army.

And due to lack of any efficiency by bows and slings romans had 1/3 of named units being ranged. And that is why sources mention Aetius was famous archer and describe many battles to use archers while being heavily guarder or mixed with other units to be protected from charges.

German armies recruit 8-10 skirmishers, which is certainly not historically accurate and due to the balance of missiles this can actually be ludicrously effective.

Actually most german units were missile (javelins, axes, angons), even romans adapter most of those into their military replacing pilum (spiculum). Late antiquity tactics went back to use spear as main melee or throwing weapon.

If you aim to defend balance issues based on spurious historical grounds, I beseech you to find me a single historical source for Roman rebels of the Bagaudae class utilizing field artillery at all.

Man, this is just a game, you cannot avoid some simplicity and conventionality of rules. The best answer is that it does its work since you see it as being hard what was kinda purpose why i left siege units for some rebels, especially roman origin. Anyway Bagaudes were probably not that rabble armies while even Emperors had to pay them to pass Alps .

In fact, if you could find an account of a Late Roman battle where a cheiroballista is used at all, I'd be impressed. There is an account of Julian using ballistiarii in the 350s, but it seems clear they are light infantry.

Ammianus describes Amida siege and says no word about artillery while it was sure both armies used it. Lack of description doesn't mean there were none such. Notitia doesn't count a single manubalistaries, while we know they were in use (and that is why i left balistarii units). Notitia counts only 5 roman balistarii (real) units, while we know they kept siege equipment in the cities directly. Notitia clearly states that roman soldiers were using slings and bows as side weapons, while you cannot simulate it correctly in the game, so ranged units stay separate. Some sources also state that germans used bows as well as side weapons while you find no sources they used it. But it doesn't mean they didn't.

The basic problem is you see balance other way i do, so probably we don't find consensus. And i can't really confirm overrecruiting siege or ranged units not as much as i played (and i do a lot just for tests even, maybe you have that bad luck that actually your collection of submods and options create that). So i don't see problem rebels hire 1-2 cheiroballistas, in fact i bless AI for being that stupid to make battle easier for me if so happens.

Anyway check what other says:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15741508
_{^{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBAg4-eO7s&t=1960s}}

[Cgma]

Did anyone notice all of the Celt Late infantry have the Flame throwing spear which one shot everything?

Yeah, i have noticed, Ahiga left it vanilla so did i. They are not OP anyway since shield wall/testudo counters it pretty well.

[Cgma]

Deleted for continuity

I'm not going to argue that. We are all just human beings so everyone may have bad day sometimes or just don't agree with point of view of others. Sometimes you leave it as it is, sometimes you use sharp knives to be heard.

I totally agree with the OP, Attilla just feels completely "wrong" and these mods don't fix it at all. Archers and slingers should not be mowing down legionaries by the dozens each volley, and artillery is just plain absurd in this game, with onagers basically acting like Napoleonic artillery and blasting holes in enemy lines with great accuracy. Pure fantasy and arcade-style game with very little historical realism.

Actually FotE is essentially the same as it was from the start, neither of the features added in last updates changes that. FotE+EP Revised is my own, personal idea for game ballance and gameplay so if it doesn't fit your taste than i'm sorry, but i can't satisfy everyone. Gameplay for both mods is surely specific, not really vanilla style so you need to drop some common habits to find it funny or challenging. If you just want vanilla style game use other mods like Radious or else.

You will never get ballance issues at perfect state, ranged units may look like OP, but in fact due to misery of AI units generator they need to be a bit better than expected so AI armies may still keep some effectiveness, so artillery - even if very accurate they still have only 10-14 shots so every army can stand it easily. Other thing is that Huns and Sassanids rely heavy on ranged units, decreasing effectiveness of ranged units makes them essentially too weak and that is not a point anyway.
Still game is not kinda simulator of battlefield, you have to accept some simplifications as we are not able to copy every aspect of reality, neither game developer is.

[Odinarius]

Cgma sometimes overreacts, but he's right on most points. Sassanids (and Parthians before) and Huns have been a problem for Rome, both because of the mobility of their armies and because of ranged supremacy. Inside the game, I don't think the balance is so off.

Light units are slaughtered by the good archer units, that's true, but formations are immensely helpful. I find myself constantly switching them, shieldwall for the melee combat, and two types of testudos for maneuvers or holding against the archers. And it is pretty effective, I never take great losses against ranged units.
Also, there is a big difference between light and heavier troops, as high armor values help immensely and I really cannot say that legionaries get mowed down by dozens each volley. Early game units sure, but mid game ones do not. In a testudo formation, heavy units can hold against heaviest of ranged attacks almost indefinitely. Germanic archers are quite weak, with low arrow damage, which makes them quite useless against roman shields and useful only against other archers, to which they are quite vulnerable in turn. So there is an additional tactical layer there, which OP seems to miss.

As for the cavalry, sure, someone wrote it is a vanilla script which has so far proven impossible to correct. Game would be better without it. But again, it forces you to employ different tactics, and use cavalry only when they can make a decisive impact. Oh, and I never use lancers, they are such a glass cannon that I find regular melee cavalry much more useful.

As for the small siege engines, they are quite useless and run out of ammo so quickly I don't see them as an issue. And there aren't that many. Plus, with the big garrisons, how would you breach the walls? Since game mechanics simply don't allow for more complex rebellion mechanics like garrison troops turning rebel or something similar, it is essential to have at least some of them.

[Reno Melitensis]

Well there are people visiting these fora from time to time like me too check if there us some new updates.

On the problem of artillery are do agree with Cgma that you are a very bad tactician. Just outflank the caroballistas with your fast cavalry, end if story. The AI tents to leave them behind we he attacks making the work of the light cavalry much too easier.

What really annoyed me with this mod is the low loyalty of generals and new candidates all in all its a great mod and a joy to play.

Cheers