Rome 2 Patches, Hotfixes, Betas and Such (patch 17 live!)

[Slaists]

So far, on turn 75 with a VH Macedon campaign which started post patch IV beta release. I have 30+ regions and no AI has ever declared war on me: I am just steamrolling my way through same as before. Hey, Seleucids voluntarily became my vassals without any hostilities breaking between us. AI's Rome was at some point almost taken out by Epirus, but then Romans pulled themselves together and wiped out the pesky Italians. Now though, it seems, Northern barbarians are about to sack Rome itself.

Battles are a tad more interesting now that the AI is not starving as a rule. I am about to hit the threshold for the civil war start: I hope, that will heat things up a bit.

Patch 4 reduces the occurence of madness traits and reduces the number of slingers in AI armies. However, beating slingers with low tier infantry is a pain indeed. If your men are with weak base morale (below 50) they will take heavy casualties. Use cavalry to kill the slingers instead - even two units of equites will be enough.

later on, once your pretorians get to 90+ morale and a ton of defence/armour/shields you will just run them over. And by later I mean 10 turns after the start if you rush to Pretorians (which you should as Rome is one of the richest factions at campaign start)

Rush Praetorians? The Roman campaign is way too easy with Hastati + Principes + Triarii, no need for rushing Praetorians (or Legionaries for that matter), which I feel, should be allowed no more than 1 cohort per stack. When I play Romans I tend to have half my legion as auxiliaries for roleplaying (Italian auxialiary cavalry is better than the early Roman variety anyway).

[fallen851]

Rush Praetorians? The Roman campaign is way too easy with Hastati + Principes + Triarii, no need for rushing Praetorians (or Legionaries for that matter), which I feel, should be allowed no more than 1 cohort per stack. When I play Romans I tend to have half my legion as auxiliaries for roleplaying (Italian auxialiary cavalry is better than the early Roman variety anyway).

Agreed Slaists. I've never understood the need to absolutely dominate such a weak AI by resorting to things like this. What is the thrill? If you're going to play a game of soccer (football for those in Europe) with a bunch of young kids, do you really need to bring your cleats along?

I could understand if the AI put up a fight... but it doesn't.

[Myth]

Agreed Slaists. I've never understood the need to absolutely dominate such a weak AI by resorting to things like this. What is the thrill? If you're going to play a game of soccer (football for those in Europe) with a bunch of young kids, do you really need to bring your cleats along?

I could understand if the AI put up a fight... but it doesn't.

Yes it does, but you have to play a real difficulty setting and not baby mode.

[Alcibiade]

I'm currently at war with at least a dozen different factions. There are enemy agents everywhere inside my lands. Even provinces that are hundreds of miles away from where I am fighting have agents trying to cause unrest or sabotage. I'm not getting any assassinations of generals yet, though they are hitting my agents pretty hard. I'm beginning to think they have actually gone a little overboard with the agent spam.

I wonder if they changed something aboutthe agents with patch 4. I didn't see anything about that in the patch notes. But maybe, it only became noticeable with a more agressive AI.

I've got a neat little dance going on with a full stack from Media Atropatene. I hold Antioch and Edessa, which are about one turns movement apart for an army. Media Atropatene has an army just far enough south of those two cities that it would take me two turns to get to them. If I make the attempt, they can hit one city or the other, most likely capturing it. They move towards Edessa, I come out of Antioch to defend Edessa. They move back towards Antioch, I leave Edessa and dash back to Antioch. It's frustrating and amusing at the same time.

It looks like a chess "pat".

When I play Romans I tend to have half my legion as auxiliaries for roleplaying (Italian auxialiary cavalry is better than the early Roman variety anyway).

That's interesting, as I'm trying to roleplay with the Romans but I use this 1/2 auxiliary ratio only for the legions which are in far away provinces.In this matter I thought I would have only one first cohort by legion and one praetorian accompanying only the most important characters in the game. I was wondering about the ratio of veterans too.

Another question is to allow legions to stand in Rome's region. I only allow my legions to stay in Rome's province in case of invasion.

Actually it might be time for a House Rules thread !

[Myth]

So far, on turn 75 with a VH Macedon campaign which started post patch IV beta release. I have 30+ regions and no AI has ever declared war on me: I am just steamrolling my way through same as before. Hey, Seleucids voluntarily became my vassals without any hostilities breaking between us. AI's Rome was at some point almost taken out by Epirus, but then Romans pulled themselves together and wiped out the pesky Italians. Now though, it seems, Northern barbarians are about to sack Rome itself.

Battles are a tad more interesting now that the AI is not starving as a rule. I am about to hit the threshold for the civil war start: I hope, that will heat things up a bit.



Rush Praetorians? The Roman campaign is way too easy with Hastati + Principes + Triarii, no need for rushing Praetorians (or Legionaries for that matter), which I feel, should be allowed no more than 1 cohort per stack. When I play Romans I tend to have half my legion as auxiliaries for roleplaying (Italian auxialiary cavalry is better than the early Roman variety anyway).

Not sure how that happens, as the Avernii I was at war constantly until I took Roma and Magna Graecia. As Sparta, I picked my fights and people want NAPs but I still was in war with Rome/Etruscans/Carthage+Satrapies. Is Macedon somehow liked by other hellenistic factions? In any event, you're picking your wars carefully if you don't get the AI to declare on you, which can be attributed to careful playing. How much have you conquered in those 75 turns?

As for the Romans - I wouldn't pick that faction if I wanted a challenge. I play them to dominate as Rome and to enjoy the great civil buildings they have (their farms still suck though). I hear people are having a tough start as Pontus, so the AI definitely does declare war though.

[BroskiDerpman]

I'm looking forward to playing as Pontus when I do get Rome 2, is there any decent guides on them? I've only seen Bram's AAR and some online battle videos with Pontus.

[fallen851]

Yes it does, but you have to play a real difficulty setting and not baby mode.

I'm sorry if you can't beat the AI without rushing to Praetorians. I'll agree the AI is somewhat more challenging than most TW games, but that doesn't say much. I have to give it a chance to be able to compete, and rushing to Pratorians doesn't give it a chance. Maybe our difference is in our expectations. I expect the AI to actually defeat me. If you just expect them to give you a fight here and there, then you are right.

I do take video games quite seriously though, was a semi-professional SC2 play for awhile and made some money doing it... that may be the difference.

[Slaists]

Not sure how that happens, as the Avernii I was at war constantly until I took Roma and Magna Graecia. As Sparta, I picked my fights and people want NAPs but I still was in war with Rome/Etruscans/Carthage+Satrapies. Is Macedon somehow liked by other hellenistic factions? In any event, you're picking your wars carefully if you don't get the AI to declare on you, which can be attributed to careful playing. How much have you conquered in those 75 turns?

As for the Romans - I wouldn't pick that faction if I wanted a challenge. I play them to dominate as Rome and to enjoy the great civil buildings they have (their farms still suck though). I hear people are having a tough start as Pontus, so the AI definitely does declare war though.

Actually, Macedon gets a diplomatic hit with all Hellenistic factions... How much I conquered in those 75 turns? I have 30+ regions (not counting vassals), 5 of my allowed 9 armies, 1 navy. I guess, I do tend to pick my wars carefully (my diplo-relationship shows as 'steady' with anybody on the map except the nation I declare the current war on: I suppose, this is bugged actually). On VH difficulty, carefully picking wars did not matter in the previous TW titles though. In S2, on VH, the AI would have foaming at its mouth on the first sight of me (read: my border).

I will try Pontus soon. For some reason, I am not convinced there will be any more challenge there, LOL.

[Bramborough]

Pontus does have a tougher start than Rome...but probably not as tough as some other playable factions. One starts with two minor settlements, no military buildings (and few slots in which to build one). Only Eastern spearmen and slingers recruitable. I found the first few turns hairy against Galatia and Cappadocia, both of whom were pretty aggressive toward Pontic territory. But once these guys are beaten back, most other factions in the area are Hellenic and therefore quite friendly (Pontus trait). The first barracks, moreover, enables hoplite recruitment. At that point, yeah, pretty smooth sailing.

[Sp4]

I started a new campaign as Epirus and so far it's tougher than what else I've tried mostly because everyone hates you although I'm now quite friendly with Macedon after settling things down a little in and around that area. Syracuse has declared war on me, Rome hates me pretty much but I've allied with the Barbarians north of Italy, who are quite happy with keeping them busy.

[The Outsider]

Guys does anyone know when the selucids will be made playable?

[Hooahguy]

I heard within the next few weeks, but who really knows, right?

[Slaists]

Not sure how that happens, as the Avernii I was at war constantly until I took Roma and Magna Graecia. As Sparta, I picked my fights and people want NAPs but I still was in war with Rome/Etruscans/Carthage+Satrapies. Is Macedon somehow liked by other hellenistic factions? In any event, you're picking your wars carefully if you don't get the AI to declare on you, which can be attributed to careful playing. How much have you conquered in those 75 turns?

As for the Romans - I wouldn't pick that faction if I wanted a challenge. I play them to dominate as Rome and to enjoy the great civil buildings they have (their farms still suck though). I hear people are having a tough start as Pontus, so the AI definitely does declare war though.

OK, VH campaign (VH battles), Pontus, patch IV beta (with the latest hotfix as of today), here's the chronological report:

272, 2 minor provinces, no walled settlement, no serious troops available, just slingers with the precision boost + eastern spear-men; Cimmeria accepts trade off the bat; move troops towards the border with Samosata; move navy to explore the black sea

271, turn start: Cappadocia (ooo,... the scary ones...) offers peace (yeah, right... rejected) Battle for Samosata takes place: no losses on the Pontic side (thanks, eastern slingers!);

270, turn start: Seleucids offer NAP (accepted); Cappadocia offers peace (yeah, right... rejected); inside turn: Sinope: start a muster field; trade opened with: Athens, Seleucids, Odryssians, Sardes, Tylis; the main army moved toward Mazaca (violating Seleucid territory)

269, turn start: Trapezos offers DA (why not!? accepted!); inside turn: Mazaca falls to Pontus (a tight battle fought; the AI wisely sallies forth; advances after being hit with the first pebbles; somewhoe (don't know how) kills my gen who was hiding behind the ranks; still my slingers prevailed in the end). Afterwars, Pontus' main army (led by a new gen) moves onwards into Galatia who have not declared war (on Pontus) yet

268, turn start: Galatia declares war on Tylus (why not!?... after all it's just pesky me in the backyard of Galatia aiming for penetration in their capital... ); inside turn: trade opened with Macedon, Epirus; hoplite training started in Pontus regions

267, turn start: Athens offers NAP (paying cash: why not!?... accepted!); Knossos offers trade (why not? accepted!); inside the turn: not much, moving armies towards Ancyra

266, turn start: Galatian main army marches towards Amasea (forced march stance); Rhodos offers trade (paying cash for it; why not!?... accepted!); inside turn: my gen in Amasea hires mercs (missile cav) and ambushes the Galatian army: all captives killed; more hoplites queued to be trained

265, turn start: Knossos offers NAP (paying cash, why not!?...); Seleucids violate the integrity of my borders, march their army in and defeat the rebels that just have spawned... thank you, Seleucos! inside turn: A battle is fought near Ancyra defeating the remnants of the army formerly ambushed.

264, turn start, inside turn: not much. Ancyra surrounded by my armies; building gallies for safer approach to the gates; suffering attrition in the process

263, turn start, nothing. inside turn: Ancyra falls (3 waves of Pontus' eastern spearmen rout while burning the gates (good, burning the gates is tougher now), but who cares, hoplites and slingers rule the day afterwards); trade opened with Epirus, Libya; DA with Trapezos canceled (guess why...).

that's first something turns with VH Pontus. got to play further, but at least the proclaimed starting challenge of Pontus is already gone. also, no one has declared war on me (yet) and all neighbors except Trapezus and Armenia are friendly (and the latter two are my next targets).

[nearchos]

that's first something turns with VH Pontus. got to play further, but at least the proclaimed starting challenge of Pontus is already gone. also, no one has declared war on me (yet) and all neighbors except Trapezus and Armenia are friendly (and the latter two are my next targets)

I m in turn 50 something with Pontus on VH after P4 beta, and the starting turns were same, took over easily Cappadosia and Galatia,everybody wanted to trade and have a NAP or a DA and the Spartans at a point offered them selves to be my satrapy, ( i reject).

I am very carefull with the diplomatic decisions, not to provoke, but till now the AI is pasive, not only against me but also against other factions next to my borders, i.e. as i stated in an earlier post, Trapezon was at war with 3 factions, Colchis, Armenia, Kartlii), almost from the begining of the campaign, and no one army tried to enter their lands.

Now i have conquered Cappadosia, Galatia, Armenia, Colchis, kartlii and Cimeria, practicaly by marching and battling in and owtside their settlements, since their forces were always just standing by their cities waiting.

[nearchos]

Rush Praetorians? The Roman campaign is way too easy with Hastati + Principes + Triarii, no need for rushing Praetorians (or Legionaries for that matter), which I feel, should be allowed no more than 1 cohort per stack. When I play Romans I tend to have half my legion as auxiliaries for roleplaying (Italian auxialiary cavalry is better than the early Roman variety anyway).

As for the no of praetorians per army, i totaly agree and moreover i believe that, there should be a cap for all the "special" units of each faction, like the Macedonian shield bearers, Pontic bronze shields, Seleucid silver shields etc, like 1 unit per army.

[nearchos]

I'm sorry if you can't beat the AI without rushing to Praetorians. I'll agree the AI is somewhat more challenging than most TW games, but that doesn't say much. I have to give it a chance to be able to compete, and rushing to Pratorians doesn't give it a chance. Maybe our difference is in our expectations. I expect the AI to actually defeat me. If you just expect them to give you a fight here and there, then you are right.

I do take video games quite seriously though, was a semi-professional SC2 play for awhile and made some money doing it... that may be the difference.

And also, CA must reconsider the actual difficulty in game, to be according to the supposed level you pick.
Because at the moment there are only two levels, legendary and an other and the distance between them is huge.

[Myth]

I'm sorry if you can't beat the AI without rushing to Praetorians. I'll agree the AI is somewhat more challenging than most TW games, but that doesn't say much. I have to give it a chance to be able to compete, and rushing to Pratorians doesn't give it a chance. Maybe our difference is in our expectations. I expect the AI to actually defeat me. If you just expect them to give you a fight here and there, then you are right.

I do take video games quite seriously though, was a semi-professional SC2 play for awhile and made some money doing it... that may be the difference.

No need to start trolling. I can beat the AI but I usually don't impose self restrictoins on myself. If beating it with pretorians is too hard I just start another campaign wtih a faction which doesn't have such an overwhelming advantage. FYI Rome can be played with Hastati only and still win by virtue of having access to the richest lands in the game early on and the manpower to take them. I know I can pull it off but I find no particular entertainment value in it.

As to being semi-pro for SC2, this sounds like "a little bit pregnant". You're either pro or a really involved casual. SC2 is a lot harder to master than TW though. I would enjoy a MP battle versus someone with your micro skills however. Want to set up a match?

[Myth]

OK, VH campaign (VH battles), Pontus, patch IV beta (with the latest hotfix as of today), here's the chronological report:

272, 2 minor provinces, no walled settlement, no serious troops available, just slingers with the precision boost + eastern spear-men; Cimmeria accepts trade off the bat; move troops towards the border with Samosata; move navy to explore the black sea

271, turn start: Cappadocia (ooo,... the scary ones...) offers peace (yeah, right... rejected) Battle for Samosata takes place: no losses on the Pontic side (thanks, eastern slingers!);

270, turn start: Seleucids offer NAP (accepted); Cappadocia offers peace (yeah, right... rejected); inside turn: Sinope: start a muster field; trade opened with: Athens, Seleucids, Odryssians, Sardes, Tylis; the main army moved toward Mazaca (violating Seleucid territory)

269, turn start: Trapezos offers DA (why not!? accepted!); inside turn: Mazaca falls to Pontus (a tight battle fought; the AI wisely sallies forth; advances after being hit with the first pebbles; somewhoe (don't know how) kills my gen who was hiding behind the ranks; still my slingers prevailed in the end). Afterwars, Pontus' main army (led by a new gen) moves onwards into Galatia who have not declared war (on Pontus) yet

268, turn start: Galatia declares war on Tylus (why not!?... after all it's just pesky me in the backyard of Galatia aiming for penetration in their capital... ); inside turn: trade opened with Macedon, Epirus; hoplite training started in Pontus regions

267, turn start: Athens offers NAP (paying cash: why not!?... accepted!); Knossos offers trade (why not? accepted!); inside the turn: not much, moving armies towards Ancyra

266, turn start: Galatian main army marches towards Amasea (forced march stance); Rhodos offers trade (paying cash for it; why not!?... accepted!); inside turn: my gen in Amasea hires mercs (missile cav) and ambushes the Galatian army: all captives killed; more hoplites queued to be trained

265, turn start: Knossos offers NAP (paying cash, why not!?...); Seleucids violate the integrity of my borders, march their army in and defeat the rebels that just have spawned... thank you, Seleucos! inside turn: A battle is fought near Ancyra defeating the remnants of the army formerly ambushed.

264, turn start, inside turn: not much. Ancyra surrounded by my armies; building gallies for safer approach to the gates; suffering attrition in the process

263, turn start, nothing. inside turn: Ancyra falls (3 waves of Pontus' eastern spearmen rout while burning the gates (good, burning the gates is tougher now), but who cares, hoplites and slingers rule the day afterwards); trade opened with Epirus, Libya; DA with Trapezos canceled (guess why...).

that's first something turns with VH Pontus. got to play further, but at least the proclaimed starting challenge of Pontus is already gone. also, no one has declared war on me (yet) and all neighbors except Trapezus and Armenia are friendly (and the latter two are my next targets).

Seems to me that you are ready for Legendary

I think that the buff to how easy it is to get trade is a bit overdone. It's too easy to spiral your early economy out of control just with a couple of regions that have a resource now. Although it was not logical for everyone to reject trade before, it was definitely more challenging.

[Bramborough]

OK, VH campaign (VH battles), Pontus, patch IV beta (with the latest hotfix as of today), here's the chronological report:

Hmm...obviously we had different experience during early turns, and I was on Normal. Part of the explanation may be that I played these turns with Patch 3, when trade was harder to get and the AI may indeed have been more aggressive. But biggest reason is probably that I simply didn't play as smart. I didn't realize that the very first Level I training field would give me hoplites, for example, and didn't build one for a while (maybe 20-25 turns or so). I also managed to get my first army destroyed...which could have fed into Galatia/Cappadocia's aggression BoP-wise.

Oh well...if it takes being a n00b to get some challenge out of TW:R2, then I guess I don't mind being a n00b. What the hell, it's SP, right? :-)

[Alcibiade]

I started a new campaign as Epirus and so far it's tougher than what else I've tried mostly because everyone hates you although I'm now quite friendly with Macedon after settling things down a little in and around that area. Syracuse has declared war on me, Rome hates me pretty much but I've allied with the Barbarians north of Italy, who are quite happy with keeping them busy.

Sure, Epirus is the right button to push if you want the shit sandwich. As soon as you're engaged in a war with Sparta, Athens will join them and Rome can't wait to jump on your back. I was in H dificulty and my best idea was to sign a NAP with MAcedon att turn 2. I knew it would push Macedonia's re-unification away but war on the four sides is too much for an average player like me. But I lost the campaign anyway. I destroyed the Spartan stacks but thx to patch 4, 2 of my generals were murdered at turn 5, just before their armies were attacked and my elephants were useless against Athenians hoplites and op slingers. But that was fun !

I have an interesting H campaign with Pontus and my neighbours were aggressive since the beginning but that was with patch 3. First encounters with eastern cavalery stacks were enthralling !

So, to me patch 4 is better diplomacy interaction with AI factions, but agressiveness going back to pre-patch 2, unfotunately.

[Slaists]

Sure, Epirus is the right button to push if you want the shit sandwich. As soon as you're engaged in a war with Sparta, Athens will join them and Rome can't wait to jump on your back. I was in H dificulty and my best idea was to sign a NAP with MAcedon att turn 2. I knew it would push Macedonia's re-unification away but war on the four sides is too much for an average player like me. But I lost the campaign anyway. I destroyed the Spartan stacks but thx to patch 4, 2 of my generals were murdered at turn 5, just before their armies were attacked and my elephants were useless against Athenians hoplites and op slingers. But that was fun !

I have an interesting H campaign with Pontus and my neighbours were aggressive since the beginning but that was with patch 3. First encounters with eastern cavalery stacks were enthralling !

So, to me patch 4 is better diplomacy interaction with AI factions, but agressiveness going back to pre-patch 2, unfotunately.

Playing with Macedon I started new VH campaigns both with patch 3 and patch 4 beta. The AI aggressiveness (lack of it) was exactly the same.

Seems to me that you are ready for Legendary

I think that the buff to how easy it is to get trade is a bit overdone. It's too easy to spiral your early economy out of control just with a couple of regions that have a resource now. Although it was not logical for everyone to reject trade before, it was definitely more challenging.

I like the extra bonuses that the AI gets on legendary [wish I could have those without the lack of radar map on the battle-field] but dislike the fact that I cannot exit as I please (for example, if I want to play a long battle later rather than right this instant; or if I need to pause a battle to take a phone call). I also have had unpleasant experiences with the autosave (file corruption) in S2. That's why I stick with VH.

By the way, the latest hotfix to patch IV was supposed to nerf slingers (bouncing effect of their ammo removed). Well, at least in my first 10 turns as Pontus, my slingers still have machine guns. Anything goes down with a few salvos: including armored AI generals.

[Jacque Schtrapp]

OK, VH campaign (VH battles), Pontus, patch IV beta (with the latest hotfix as of today),

that's first something turns with VH Pontus. got to play further, but at least the proclaimed starting challenge of Pontus is already gone. also, no one has declared war on me (yet) and all neighbors except Trapezus and Armenia are friendly (and the latter two are my next targets).

Restart the campaign and seek an early alliance with the Seleucids. Honor that alliance until the bitter end. For whatever reason, EVERYONE hates the Seleucids and their satrapies. You will end up at war with at least a dozen different factions.

[Alcibiade]

Playing with Macedon I started new VH campaigns both with patch 3 and patch 4 beta. The AI aggressiveness (lack of it) was exactly the same.
By the way, the latest hotfix to patch IV was supposed to nerf slingers (bouncing effect of their ammo removed). Well, at least in my first 10 turns as Pontus my slingers still have machine guns. Anything goes down with a few salvos: including armored AI generals.

Well, I might have jumped too quikly on the conclusion. Those things are difficult to judge and campaigns are never the same. My new Macedonian campaign's start just seemed far too easy. But this time Tylis was not a threat and it certainly added on the impression.
I really love to play hellenistic factions. Don't know if its due to EB nostalgia of the greeck city states campaign or if it's because they are right in the center of the map.

Yes I find the slingers are still op too.

[Slaists]

Well, I might have jumped too quikly on the conclusion. Those things are difficult to judge and campaigns are never the same. My new Macedonian campaign's start just seemed far too easy. But this time Tylis was not a threat and it certainly added on the impression.
I really love to play hellenistic factions. Don't know if its due to EB nostalgia of the greeck city states campaign or if it's because they are right in the center of the map.

Yes I find the slingers are still op too.

I like to play Greeks since the old good EB, RTR days. The idea is: their location allows the player to expand East while Romans or Carthage become dominant in the West. This used to result in a decent fight in mid-game/late-game. Unfortunately, does not seem to work in RTW 2. Rome and Carthage either stagnate or get wiped out by minors.

[Myth]

I like the extra bonuses that the AI gets on legendary [wish I could have those without the lack of radar map on the battle-field] but dislike the fact that I cannot exit as I please (for example, if I want to play a long battle later rather than right this instant; or if I need to pause a battle to take a phone call). I also have had unpleasant experiences with the autosave (file corruption) in S2. That's why I stick with VH.

By the way, the latest hotfix to patch IV was supposed to nerf slingers (bouncing effect of their ammo removed). Well, at least in my first 10 turns as Pontus, my slingers still have machine guns. Anything goes down with a few salvos: including armored AI generals.

The lack of radar map is annoying but it does make battles harder, which is good.
You CAN exit as you please. Every time you quit the game it saves and the save has never corrupted for me. You can quit right before a battle. As soon as you enter the enemy zone of control and you lay siege or are about to clash wtih an army, the game is saved.
You can pause battles just fine, you just can't order your troops while paused which makes them harder.

Give Legendary a try, i've played above 200 turns on Legendary in Rome II and about as much in Shogun II not once have I had save file troubles.

[nearchos]

So, to me patch 4 is better diplomacy interaction with AI factions, but agressiveness going back to pre-patch 2, unfotunately

Exact same experience and feeling, its like they fix some things with P4 but they got AI agressiveness brokken again.

[Slaists]

I restarted yesterday after the latest hot-fix that's supposed to fix the uphill/downhill mess (units were getting a bonus for fighting uphill rather than the other way around). I rolled as Epirus on VH. The first 12 or so turns were a blast. Rome & Syracuse DOW'ed on the second turn (of course, Syracuse AI decided it was a good idea to declare war on Carthage at the same time...); Veneti joined the fray on 3rd turn and Athens on the 4th (and sent a full stack down some 6 turns later). Alas, AI's aggressiveness stopped at that. Athens, Sparta folded. Knossos soon after [the latter one I attacked myself to complete the province of Hellas]; Roman Brundissium fell as well [but they did send half an army to Apollonia, which almost took the settlement]. I suspect, now I am "too big" for the AI to attack since NAP and trade offers roll in from everywhere.

One pleasant thing that I noticed was that the AI felt much more active in siege battles. I breached Brundissium's walls in 3 places, the AI reacted to all the breaches and, in the end, put up a good fight near the capture point. It might have been a coincidence though. The wall-less settlement AI is still abysmal though.

Oh, about the latter case (settlements without walls): there seems to be a script in place now which makes the AI rotate armored units int and out of the front ranks if under missile fire. I guess, they put it in place to counter minor missiles slowly drilling down hitpoints until the target unit drops dead practically at once. Now, whenever a unit suffers some missile casualties, the AI roates the unit back to the center of the town and puts a fresh unit to guard the front. I have yet to make up my mind whether this is good or not. Those units rotated back to the center are still "damaged goods" (hit-points drilled down) even if the units appear to be full strength. On melee impact they still drop like flies (later). To be more specific: this happened when I was assaulting Sparta. My slingers peppered the defenders for a while without much visible damage. Then, as the melee broke out, the defenders died and/or routed on impact.

[Bramborough]

Oh, about the latter case (settlements without walls): there seems to be a script in place now which makes the AI rotate armored units int and out of the front ranks if under missile fire. I guess, they put it in place to counter minor missiles slowly drilling down hitpoints until the target unit drops dead practically at once. Now, whenever a unit suffers some missile casualties, the AI roates the unit back to the center of the town and puts a fresh unit to guard the front. I have yet to make up my mind whether this is good or not. Those units rotated back to the center are still "damaged goods" (hit-points drilled down) even if the units appear to be full strength. On melee impact they still drop like flies (later). To be more specific: this happened when I was assaulting Sparta. My slingers peppered the defenders for a while without much visible damage. Then, as the melee broke out, the defenders died and/or routed on impact.

I've been seeing the AI do this in the minor settlements for a long time...at LEAST since Patch 2, maybe whole game. I don't think the AI really helps himself much...all he's doing is allowing my missileers to damage a larger proportion of his army. In addition to the "self-mutilating rotation", there's also often a "sweet spot" for the attacking missile troops, whereby they can stand within range of the target, but are still far enough that the AI infantry won't charge them...nor are the attackers quite within range of the AI missile troops only a few meters behind their front line. Bottom line, it's very common for the attacking army's missile (and siege) troops to be able to expend all their ammo and inflict hundreds of casualties with impunity, before the attacking army loses a single soldier.

That said...I really don't know how the AI would play it differently. If the units stand still and do not rotate, then the AI suffers destroyed/routed units rather than damaged ones. If he retreats from the fire, it's not long before he leaves the city center (and VP) open and undfended. If he advances against the attacking missile troops, then he's open to counterattack by accompanying infantry/cavalry.

I don't necessarily want minor settlements to have walls per se, because then we're back to the "too many siege battles" problem. But I think a good compromise would be if there were some sort of strongpoint or redoubt at a few places in the settlement where at least they get some good cover from missile fire. Perhaps a small wooden or stone fort in the town, which doesn't itself encompass the city center VP, but from which their missileers can keep the VP under fire. I dunno, if they introduced such a feature, it would last maybe 24 hrs at most before we all figured out how to easily destroy it too...and then we'd just gripe about that instead.

[Slaists]

There is an option for a defender to sally forth (into a field): at times, the AI uses that. Probably, the likelihood of such sallies should be increased especially if the AI has a decent army in the town.

[Alcibiade]

One pleasant thing that I noticed was that the AI felt much more active in siege battles. I breached Brundissium's walls in 3 places, the AI reacted to all the breaches and, in the end, put up a good fight near the capture point. It might have been a coincidence though. The wall-less settlement AI is still abysmal though..

Since patch 3 the AI is not so bad in siege as a defender. But as an attacker it's a completely different story.

Recently, when I attacked it's settlements without walls, the AI chose to sally out and fight in open battles. Never saw this before.

Oh, just one question : does the quallity of units really matters with the auto-solve ? Cause I feel like elite units or not, the only thing that matters is the size of the army.