Re: No Posts for two days in here
It genuinely saddens me when the people who like this game struggle with it.Originally Posted by Myth
I personally gave it up, but I check the forums every once in awhile to see if naval battles and siege battles work. I'd really like to play a proper naval battle.
Last edited by fallen851; 06-25-2014 at 07:14.
"It's true that when it's looked at isolated, Rome II is a good game... but every time I sit down to play it, every battle, through every turn, I see how Rome I was better. Not unanimously, but ultimately." - Dr. Sane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6eaBtzqqFA#t=1h15m33s
Re: No Posts for two days in here
No. Not all deaths happen by killing moves. A lot of them are still your simple stab and fall over moves from R1.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
So, if I read it right, you're saying the AI was pretty decent in this battle. :)
But yeah, hoplites have no killing power (they do have staying power), even the Spartan ones whereas hastati's swords have a bonus against spears. Add to that the fact that the formation stance is supposedly improving fighting stats now (I have not tested this, but CA claims it does as of a few patches ago) and you get your standoff there.
Given the hitpoint mechanism I would not be surprised hit-animations and a soldier getting killed are uncorrelated.
Anyway, most melee killing at least in Roman armies happened by simple stab moves (from behind the shield). Romans did not like expose themselves to be able to do dramatic cleaves.
Last edited by Slaists; 06-25-2014 at 14:38.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...combat-system?
Older discussion, but apparently there were/are issues related to the Warscape Engine and melee animations...
Which led to this:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=208344533
20 minutes on 6X speed is more than a bit excessive to resolve a unit combat situation, so something is still not right....
High Plains Drifter
Re: No Posts for two days in here
There is also a thread where someone from CA responded that while the animations show only 1 on 1 duels, the engine actually accounts for the fact that units are locally outnumbered, outflanked, attacked from multiple sides, etc. This suggests, the animations and actual hitpoint loss/kills are not necessarily 100% correlated. Sorry, could not find the reference. I read that post a long time ago.http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...combat-system?
Older discussion, but apparently there were/are issues related to the Warscape Engine and melee animations...
Which led to this:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=208344533
20 minutes on 6X speed is more than a bit excessive to resolve a unit combat situation, so something is still not right....
As to 20 minutes on 6x speed combat: to be honest, I personally have never seen that in my gzillion hours with Rome 2. Very rarely any of my battles against the AI go longer than 10 minutes on normal speed [mostly the longer ones are siege battles where I have to wait for reinforcements or defending siege battles where the AI is drawing multiple stacks in]. But in those cases it's not combat that takes time but rather there is a long wait for troops to arrive. Then again, I have not attempted to play a pure hoplite nation since patch 3 or so.
Last edited by Slaists; 06-25-2014 at 16:53.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
The hoplites are the problem. High quality hoplites against high quality hoplites is pretty silly.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
In this case, hoplites vs. hastatii. In R1, this combat would've been over in two minutes or less, and no guesswork as to who winsI didn't count on literally sitting there for 20 real life minutes on 6x speed, lookng at 2 blobs (one of hoplites, one of Hastati) pushing into each other in a narrow street choke point.....the other end of the spectrum.
As to elite hoplites vs. elite hoplites, the first Battle of Mantinea in 418BC during the Peloponnesian War was almost entirely a hoplite conflict with roughly 17,000 hoplites on both sides involved.....and it "only" took 6-8 hours to resolve the battle
So considering a mere handful of troops, by comparison, 2 hours is excessive. Maybe Myth's experience is a 'one-off' anomaly, so the verdict is still out, I guess
Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 06-26-2014 at 00:38.
High Plains Drifter
Re: No Posts for two days in here
In the few early Roman battles I have had against hastati wielding AI, my hastati chop up hoplites, no problem. Sure, hastati suffer heavy losses in the process but there is no question as to who comes out on the top and the resolution does not take long either.
Sounds like a slug-fest. I'd resolve it by javelins, in the backs of the opposite side. That or an agrianin axe.
Funny, the other day I by mistake sent some Spartan (regular) hoplites against a group of AI agrianians who just disembarked on the beach. Agrianians killed almost the whole hoplite unit, in melee...
Last edited by Slaists; 06-25-2014 at 18:42.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
Sounds like very poor unit balancing to me. In a real-life combat situation, I would venture that in melee combat hoplites would decimate spear-chuckers 99.999% of the timeFunny, the other day I by mistake sent some Spartan (regular) hoplites against a group of AI agrianians who just disembarked on the beach. Agrianians killed almost the whole hoplite unit, in melee...
Player vs AI is a mis-match to begin with, but on a design level I would have a problem with this being the common result. Troop quality, leadership quality, terrain, etc are all factors affecting the outcome, but if per-Marian Hastatii beat mid-grade hoplites consistently 1v1, with no flanking or other outside influences, something is wrong, IMHO.In the few early Roman battles I have had against hastati wielding AI, my hastati chop up hoplites, no problem.
High Plains Drifter
Re: No Posts for two days in here
You might have missed the fact that it's Spartan Hoplites versus Hastati and Town watch. Also, that I had 6 slinger units and 3 helot javelinmen. So 9 skirimisher units, who were pelting the enemy blob until they ran out of ammo. They were shooting over the backs of my guys, but still.
If I had moved my general back to not let him die, the battle would still be going I think. It's absurd. I'm not against Hastati being more flexible and beating hoplites on the open field. But in a narrow street choke point where both armies turn into blobs, I'd favour the Spartans.
I've fought hoplites with pikes very successfully, pre-pikemen nerf. I remember conquering asia minor (which has a lot of factions that like to spam fullstacks of hoplites) with Seleukid pikes. But post nerf and post skirmisher buff, pikes do very poorly on the open field en masse. Perhaps I still should get 4-6 pikes for just these city assaults however. But Spartan pikes are just so fragile compared to the better versions that Egypt, Macedon and Seleukeia have...
The art of war, then, is governed by five constant
factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations,
when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.
These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth;
(4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
Like totalwar.org on Facebook!
Re: No Posts for two days in here
Missile fire over the backs of your own guys is not very effective in that situation. You are shooting into the face of the enemies which means they'll have more protection against the javelins and slingers than your own guys. You probably lost more people to friendly fire there than the Romans did. Slingers attacking a unit from behind another unit is pretty useless, they will not have any effect. It works somewhat with javelins but moving either unit so they can throw stuff into the side of the enemy's units would have been a better thing to do.
I know narrow streets and choke points and all that but 1-2 healthy units of hoplites in phalanx can be relied upon to hold a large blob of even high quality units on a chokepoint for some time for your to move something else around them.
In game mechanical terms, you had a blob of spear infantry slug it out with a blob of melee infantry. Melee wins, no surprise.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
Spartan hoplite (not talking about Royal Spartans) stats in my opinion are just marginally better than the stats of other run-of-the-mill hoplites. Sure, they beat other hoplites in one-on-one fights, but sword units? Not such a clear-cut answer. Hastati on the other hand are much better sword units (of the same tier) than any other playable faction gets (I haven't noticed any and I'm not talking about oathsworn here but barrack-level 1-2 units). I suspect, that and the sword versus spear bonus kicks in for that Spartan hoplite versus hastati fight.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
I think Egypt gets to recruit Galatian sword people pretty early on, they are not bad, but yeah. The Hastatis you can churn out as Rome the moment you load up your first campaign are probably all the melee infantry you will need for the first 100 turns.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
In game mechanical terms, you had a blob of spear infantry slug it out with a blob of melee infantry. Melee wins, no surprise.Can someone please explain why soldiers with a short, stabbing sword, have a bonus fighting hoplites and/or pikes? I realize that CA used the rock>paper>scissor idea from the beginning in Shogun. There it made sense, as troops using a sword wielded a very large, two-handed naginata or nodachi.the sword versus spear bonus kicks in for that Spartan hoplite versus hastati fight.
Even the shortest doru used by hoplites was something like 8 feet in length (although not all of the length would be projected beyond the hoplon), so just how does a gladius-equipped hastatii penetrate the shield-wall easily? It certainly was done, but not easily, I would think. Seems even worse when facing pikemen using a sarissa. As long as the shield-wall stays intact, keeping all those pointy sticks facing the enemy, I would think the advantage lies with the hoplite due to the longer reach of his weapon
And I'm not even going to touch the issue of moderately equipped, moderately trained Roman infantrymen taking on heavily armored/armed hoplites toe-to-toe
And this bears repeating to point up, IMHO, how poorly balanced unit stats are:
Must have had their Wheaties for breakfast, or something......Agrianians killed almost the whole hoplite unit, in melee...
Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 06-26-2014 at 15:39.
High Plains Drifter
Re: No Posts for two days in here
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Rome was built using short (efficient), stabbing swords hiding behind huge shields...
The latter part is not unimportant too. The main advantage of the spears - their reach, could not do much against the advancing Roman wall of shields (larger than hoplite shields). Once in close quarters: that short stabbing sword combined with an organized shield wall pushes could do more than spears.
For one, with a sword, you can go low and instead of a stab, cut opponent's legs at knee/ankle height. One such cut and the opponent would be out of the fight for good [on top of that would receive a shield in the face from the rear Roman ranks]. In close quarters, the short sword stab is also more efficient.
Probably a tad different against pikes. But Romans did not try to beat pikes face on but rather outmaneuvered them.
All in all that sword versus spear makes sense to me.
p.s. Sure, hoplites had a shield wall too. But it is not clear how well trained hoplite troops were at the time portrayed in Rome 2. After all, the last battle involving a large hoplite army (defeated btw) happened in 338 BC at Chersonea.
Last edited by Slaists; 06-26-2014 at 22:07.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
Sure, I'll be happy to correct you on this piece. Rome was most definitely built on a lot more than the use of pointy swords. Efficient or otherwise.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
Rome II stuff (bar the latest DLC) on 66% daily sale on Steam. CiG costs 5 euro.
The art of war, then, is governed by five constant
factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations,
when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.
These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth;
(4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
Like totalwar.org on Facebook!
Re: No Posts for two days in here
Fixed
Re: No Posts for two days in here
Fixed? Fixed what
In any case, after some time perusing though web material, I came up with these three links as pretty good answers to my question:
http://rtw.heavengames.com/history/g...ius_vs_sarissa
http://deadliestblogpage.wordpress.c...ng-the-debate/
http://weaponsandwarfare.com/?p=2776
All are pretty short, and interesting reads. What I get from them is that Roman success against phalanx was based on several factors. The first is more flexibility, through the use of maniples, on the battlefield. A quote from the third link with this statement from Polybius:
The second is the use of pilum to create initial gaps in the shield wall which allowed Roman infantry to get in close where they had the advantage.the Romans do not make their line equal in force to the enemy and expose all the legions to a frontal attack by the phalanx, but part of their forces remain in reserve and the rest engage the enemy. Afterwards whether the phalanx drives back by its charge the force opposed to it or is repulsed by this force, its own peculiar formation is broken up. For either in following a retreating foe or in flying before an attacking foe, they leave behind the other parts of their own army, upon which the enemy’s reserve have room enough in the space formerly held by the phalanx to attack no longer in front but appearing by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of the phalanx.
A third is a bit more vague but judging from the ease with which the Romans outflanked Philip V at Cynoscephalae and Perseus at Pydna, the author of the last link seems to have a good point when he states:Before closing to sword range, however, the heavy infantrymen of the maniples would hurl their pilum into the ranks of the enemy. It would imbed itself in man or shield; and if stuck in the enemy’s shield would encumber or disable it altogether. As the enemy was coping with the shower of pila, the maniples would smash into their ranks just seconds later, driving forward with large shield and deadly swords. All along the line, individual maniples would make impact with the enemy line; causing shock and disruption.
Then there are the intangibles like better leadership on the part of the Romans, better organization, etc., and these are certainly very subjective.Another major factor that contributed to the defeat of the phalanx was the inadequate flank protection by the cavalry force. In contrast to earlier glorious periods, the Macedonians had neglected their cavalry and relied mostly on the sarissa phalanx, trying to maximize its shock action but not taking into account the disadvantages. It is surprising to see that Philip had only 2,000 troopers, half of them Macedonians, against an enemy which counted on maneuverability and outflanking in order to deal with the phalanx; on the contrary, it was the Roman and allied cavalry that proved to be superior. It is argued that, most possibly, the outcome of the wars would have been different if there had been a strong and efficient Macedonian cavalry force.
So........this begs two more questions:
Much of Roman superiority depends on not just "getting in close" but in the manipular formations in the field. Using Myth's experience of a 1v1 engagement on a level city street between a Spartan hoplite unit and a single Hastatii unit, who should win?
Does the Roman experience translate to other sword units who a) do not use a gladius b) do not use a shield wall of their own to get in close c) do not use a flexible formation such as the Roman maniple?
....and btw, since there isn't much of dog-spit for activity around here, I hope noone minds this whole long-winded discussion
Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 06-27-2014 at 06:18.
High Plains Drifter
Re: No Posts for two days in here
Basically you are complaining about something that has been in the game like that since CA made these games. That's what I was fixing in your post.
And by this I do not mean to say that it has been broken from the start but it is a game design choice that has existed from the start.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
....and unfortunately for me, I have neither the time nor the skill to balance unit stats, nor remove the sword vs spear bonus for the units who might not warrant it.it is a game design choice that has existed from the start.
Orgahs here are such giving fellows.......That's what I was fixing in your post.
High Plains Drifter
Re: No Posts for two days in here
I know it sucks, especially after all this hype about Rome 2 being basically Rome 1 but better and all that jazz but basically, all melee units in Rome 2 are reskinned versions of each other. They behave the same, they do the same, they even have throwing spears, every single one of them. Everything that has a spear and a shield is a reskinned hoplite - the phalanx button as well.
It might look differently but Rome 2 has about as much unit diversity as Shogun 2.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
Yep, that is exactly my impression as well. Which is why I laugh really hard every time someone throws out that R2 has 5000 units in it or complain that S2 had too few.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
I'm not a player that just cannot live without having a zillion units to choose from in a faction's roster. Which is why I still enjoy Shogun 1/Med 1...it's all about the gameplay and outmaneuvering the AI army once we're on the battlefield. Plus my favorite battlefield situations involve small unit engagements where each side might have a dozen units or less. A single mistake usually costs you the battle. That's far more exciting to me than grand battles with thousands of troops. That, and battles you absolutely have to win.I laugh really hard every time someone throws out that R2 has 5000 units in it or complain that S2 had too few.
In Shogun 1, the Oda 1580 campaign, you fight a battle, usually within the first three turns, where a Takeda-Imagawa alliance force attacks you in the Mino Province. Takeda, of course, brings the heavy cavalry/Cavalry Archers, and Imagawa brings Yari Samurai/Samurai Archers and Battlefield Ninja. You, as Oda, have only Ashigaru and Teppo. You absolutely have to win or you might just as well hit the Start Campaign Over button. Thankfully, Mino is very rugged, mountainous terrain where your deployment (especially your musket) makes or breaks the battle. Can't beat that for excitement....your first battle, and one you must win against heavy odds.
Screenies from one of my Oda 1580 campaigns (my apologies for getting off the OP...just figured many folks here have never played or seen screenshots from the One-That-Started-It-All):
https://imgcash4.imageshack.us/Himg2...=640&ysize=480
[Takeda cavalry in black, forefront-right, and streaming in up the valley; Imagawa forces in blue center-left on the small hill; Oda in gold]
https://imgcash2.imageshack.us/Himg3...=640&ysize=480
Since Med2/R1, it's all about siege battles, and apparently that CA "tradition" is carried on with R2, which is why players who enjoy the art of maneuver just auto-calc them. Might just as well auto-calc the entire campaign and be done with it....
Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 06-27-2014 at 20:59.
High Plains Drifter
Re: No Posts for two days in here
Well, if you use mods (and I know this is kind of a failure in itself), you can force a defender to come out of a city. The problem is, the AI rarely does this and it makes a lot of 'conquests' take very very long.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
Nothing in Shogun 2 gave me this feeling like drop in battles back when it initially launched and players were doing this frequently enough to make it work in your campaign.
No matter the odds, having a human managing the army on the other side of the battle made a HUGE difference.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
I second this. This was a great feature in S2 and NTW. Sure, drop-in needs enough of a participant base to become meaningful. Something was bugged in S2 with this feature though. Unless one accepted the drop-in for the very first battle, the drop-in option almost never got activate afterwards (even though it was turned on). Also, the campaign map seemed to stutter if constant drop-in search was turned on.
Re: No Posts for two days in here
I was quite partial to Uesugi in S1 and fought countless similar battles in Hida and Mino. Maybe that was my fault for being unimaginative or too cautious but fighting the same battle again and again, be it siege or field, is a bit boring. I think it's also been a feature of every single TW campaign I've played accross all the games! Is that just me? nontheless, managing the attrition as the smae province was invaded turn after turn was a challenge - I had to have reinforcements next door to swap out depleted units.In Shogun 1, the Oda 1580 campaign, you fight a battle, usually within the first three turns, where a Takeda-Imagawa alliance force attacks you in the Mino Province.
I agree that siege battles, particularly when they are badly designed and the AI is patheticly unable to cope with them, age faster and are worse to replay than field battles at which the AI is more competent. I can't help but feel that a lot has gone wayward since MTW2, when CA moved away from the abstracted provinces and introduced "3d maps" to the campaign. Since Empire they've kind of found a fix by pathing/restricting freedom of movement (lots of impassable mountains, emphasis on roads) but in so doing the campaign maps don't do much more than look pretty and provide more opportunities for the campaign AI to look even more foolish (as the player outmaneuvres them).
Re: No Posts for two days in here
I know this and twcenter both take ages to load compared to the average webpage. Also it looks like the older games are getting a bit more attention on this than twcenter and the official forums but the newer ones are lacking a lot compared to the other two
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks