Printable View
Super excited to try this out:
The patch notes look fantastic, cant wait to try all this new stuff out!Quote:
Players can now customise the emblem on their Generals and Admirals banners. 32 new emblems have been added. When you select a General or Admiral on the Campaign map, and click the "Details" button, players can select a new emblem via a new user interface.
Meaty, beaty big and bouncy!!!
Increased the willingness of the AI signing trade agreements and defensive alliance.
Yay
How did the find that? Do people try these things out? I wonder if there is someone out there who tries playing this while doing a handstand.Quote:
Fixed Campaign lock up when a rank 2 or higher General dies, after selecting a replacement with the "Duty Calls" event, then selecting any other open event, and then attempting to open Diplomacy.
-E- I did a 'little test' and now everyone trades with me, even people who hate me XD
This is most probably found by QA testers, or Game Testers if you will who are paid for it. They actually have a list of Do this then this then this etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp4
Liking patch4beta. Lots of nice little items which just makes things easier. Now on "Household Expands", one can compare the current retainer with the newly available one, instead of trying to remember who was with that general. The province list mouse-scrolls again.
Trade does seem to come a bit easier now. I'm not sure if that's the patch, or the fact that I'm now playing Pontus which has a nice diplo boost with Hellenic states (as opposed to my prior Junii Romans whom everyone instinctively hates).
Haven't yet had a chance yet to take over enemy towns to see if they're building them any smarter. I did just fight an AI army which seemed well loaded with as high-quality troops as they could reasonably have available at this game stage...although again I don't know if that's the patch or not.
Best of all, seeing none of the glitchiness which seemed to plague many of us with the introduction of patch3beta....smooth sailing.
A lot of solid changes here. Unit cards scaling horizontally uncluttering the screen, units and agents levelling up animation staying on campaign map and the improvements to the diplomacy screens are very welcome.
Patch IV beta. Patch notes say the AI is now prioritizing military buildup. I am playing as Macedonia (fresh start, VH) and took Apollonia from Epirus. They had two barracks buildings there... Food shortage would have been imminent for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
Deployed agents on the campaign map, no longer reset back to being un-deployed when they level up.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
They just took it to a ..whole...notha........level
These patches show great potential for Rome 2. Sure, one can harp about a great many of these issues being unfixed at release (which is perfectly justified), but the direction and scope of each patch gives me genuine hope for a truly awesome campaign once Seleucid is released.
And if this bleeds into multiplayer, which I know nothing of, this could go on to be an epic game.
I played a few turns with the patch 4 beta and I already see more infantry/cavalry heavy armies and fewer slingers. For example, I took this from my current Suebi campaign:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
This Roman army, as you can tell, has an excellent makeup, in my opinion.
Though they do need to get better at managing their food supplies.
This is exactly what I was afraid of when I read the notes. I think this type of re-balancing really needs time to be play-tested thoroughly before being implemented, or the campaign AI may end up being constantly broke and require scripted cheats to stay competitive like in RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
The rest of the changes are awesome improvements :thumbsup:
I have not really seen any of this unit card scaling.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassbarman
Im just going by the patch notes. I haven't had a chance to try it out yet but I hope it's better because it annoyed the hell out me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp4
Fully agree!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonska
IMO the game is getting better wit each patch ! But I've read so many posts on TWC or the official forum claiming the exact opposite that I'm beginning to ask myself if I'm completely blind or just too stupid to see their point...
Anyway, as I have two mods installed (close combat and no HDR) I'm a bit hesitant to install the patch 4 beta. Has anyone here had those CTD on start up caused by mods + patch 4 ?
Ive had one CTD with the new patch, but Im not sure if the patch actually caused it. I pressed "end turn" while zoomed all the way out while using a "zoom out more" mod and I crashed. Then I reloaded, zoomed back in, and ended my turn and no CTD.
Actually that little bug is pretty easy to find out. A lot of times the AI, at least in my campaign game, would assassinate whatever general i had closest to the front lines and then DoW me. About 60% of the time I froze.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp4
The game for me at least is far better after the last couple of patches. The other forums tend to be a little more "animated" than on here so take about 80% of the reaction there with a grain of salt. Game still needs a ton of work especially siege AI but it's getting there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
Now I have seen it and.. woohoo! I am impressed :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sp4
http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/...6F0BF645BA173/
My theory is that at some point a "critical mass" of negative opinion is sometimes reached, and a vocal minority become intractably hostile. Once this occurs, no matter what positive changes occur, the baying hounds just won't be quieted. Regrettable though it may be, it's normal...commonly seen in politics, sports, pretty much anywhere. Certainly nothing new...we've been doing it for thousands of years, but the internet is a natural medium to facilitate and amplify this tendency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
My own opinion is that each patch has substantially improved the game, and patch4beta is no different. I did have some initial campaign map problems with patch3beta (resolved well before that patch went live). All other patches, including patch4beta, have run just fine for me. I see no rational reason whatsoever to recommend against installing it.
I played two campaigns with Parthia, with patch 3, legendary which i quit and start a new in very hard.
In both cases i had a dificult time, i had to deal with a lot of enemies, an aggresive AI, invasions and enemy agents all over my lands, some times there were 3 or 4 agents, where my main stacks were operating.
After beta patch 4, i desided to start a new camapign, so i start with Pontus in very hard.
I see most of the changes posted, in diplomacy, in AI army composition, agents, etc, ok.
Now the AI. I currently own 9 settlements, by destroying 4 factions, Cappadocia, Galatia,Armenia and Kartlii( not sure how is writen).
I have defencive alliances with Bythinia and Trapezon and trade aggreements with most of factions.
Until this point, no enemy army, since the start of the campaign, moved from their settlements, i was just murching my armies and attack, the settlement and waiting armies, destroying them and capturing the town.
They just never moved aggresively.
And moreover, Trapezon, was for many turns at war with, Armenia, Kartlii and Colhis, but no army of theirs ever moved to capture their only settlement, which was not heavily guarded and an easy pick esspecialy for Armenia.
I also can see that most of the factions, not only enemies have still problems with food sortages.
Has anyone else same experience with AI aggresivenes with patch 4? should i turn to patch 3 until they fix it again?
Interesting difference in experience with early Pontus campaign. Galatia, Cappadocia, and Cimmeria have all acted pretty aggressively toward me, I've had to defend starting capital and port vs full-size invading army several times. They've also repeatedly blockaded Sinope...driving me to completely change my near-term strategic plan in order to deal with it. I will agree that Armenia - formally at war with me - was strangely passive while I was preoccupied with these other folks. Other than that, I've got no complaint about AI aggressiveness. I began the campaign on Patch 3, but this kind of spunky AI behavior has continued with patch4beta.Quote:
Originally Posted by nearchos
This has been on Normal...counterintuitive that AI would get less aggressive on a higher difficulty level. Maybe I was just lucky.
happy happy joy joyQuote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
Seriously, I wonder when CA will correct the problem of major historical factions like Rome, Carthage, Egypt or Seleucid being destroyed so early in the game. Maybe it's not in their priorities and not even on their agenda, but this is something that really annoys me.
At the moment, the only super-powers I see rising in the west are obscure Iberic or Maurish factions. I would be ok if those were Lybia or Nova Carthago (who have an access to the sea), but most of the tiime it's the Garamants , the Massaely or the Gaetuli. SAme with the Turdetani, and Edetani being so powerfull with huge fleets even befor Cathaginian contact.
Anyway, patch after patch, this game reveal its awesome potential. By the way, is there any chance for some major features like a toggable guard mode or family tree to be implemented in a future patch ? Is it a realistic wish ?
So I came back to the game last night for just a bit but I saw no opton to opt-in into patch 4? I just had the option to opt out of all betas... Strange. And it's been out for a while too.
The "main" factions being destroyed too early is an issue for me too. Coming to test the waters around Rome with the Avernii lead me to smearing them because they couldn't even contend with the Etruscan league in 30 turns :inquisitive:
I'm contemplating making my Sparta campaign basically a landgrab for the two rich Roman provinces so I can be off to a stellar start (can't make a two-bit 3 settlement province your main recruitment center now...)
No such experience for me, but im not sure, if there is something wrong with the patch 4 because i started the campaign just after i instaled the 4 beta.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
I started being at war with Cappadocia and an unfriently attitude from Galatia.
So i gather an early army of slings and eastern spears and invade the lands of the Cappadocians, after few turns i have destroyed the faction.
Galatia remains unfriendly but makes no move.Trapezon is at war already with Colhis, Armenia and Karlii and im not sending any troops to assist them since i want them out of the way in order to take Trapezon for me.I assume that sooner or later they will be destroyed, but no, no one is moving away from its settlements.
As i see the time passes, i assept the invitation from Trapezon to join the war with Armenia and i acept for 2000 dinarii, i cupture their western settlement and next turn i acept a peace trety for 3000 dinarii.
Finaly i decide to wipe the Gallatians, so i invade them with 2 armies and destroy them as a faction at turn 25.
And a detail, i only have the starting fleet and 4 armies from the 6 i can have and dont need more.
After i got access to higher level units, level 3 barracks, i declared war to Armenia and destroyed them in 3 turns.
And by watching also other factions behaviour, sending spies around to see what is going on, Seleucids, Media, Media Apopatene, they all standing around their settlements, starving....
Only further west there is movement, Sparta destroyed Athens, Rome is geting strong, Cyrrenaica is expanding.
Oh and other factions agents are passing through a couple of times.
I dont think you were lucky, because as i said, with patch 3 the AI was aggresive and used its armies and agents with efficiency.
By the way your Walkthrough of Pontus campaign is great, im looking forward for the next chapters.
Hmm...perhaps because I started with Patch 3, the basic behavior patterns set in place at campaign start continue despite the patch, but if I start another with Patch 4, they'd act more passively? Does that even make sense...could the programming work out that way (as an unintended consequence)?Quote:
Originally Posted by nearchos
Thanks for the thumbs up on the AAR. I did it just add a bit more activity. I'd enjoyed Hooah's, thought I'd give back a bit to the forum. As it turns out, it's significantly adding to my enjoyment of the game, imagining the storyline in my head as I play along.
The problem with the Gaetulii is that they sit on a purple dye deposit, and desert attrition is so underplayed in this game that they have no problem financing themselves - in my game the control all of mauretania, Carthage, and half of spain... Obviously the lack of options to expand further south pushes them north with likely unintended consequences. Anyhow, IMO any travel through the Sahara should have impossible attrition for armoured units, even on 'roads'. As if there was such a thing in the Sahara. that would add an element to desert warfare where light troops and light cavalry would need to be used. there is a reason Rome didn't settle Dakhla and Timbuktu...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
It's a good idea. Now that CA integrated attrition it might even be possible to mod.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
Maybe CA equalised the map for gameplay purpose, but it's not working for me. Some factions should be far more powerfull and rich than others. The campaign map surely needs some (un)balancing. I'd love to fight a powerfull Carthage in my next Rome campaign. And if I ever play a Seleucid campaign, I hope that I won't fight Cyrene or the Nabatea/Axum/etc... occupying Alexandria every time.
I started a new campaign as VH Pontus after installing the Patch 4 Beta. I spent the very beginning wiping out Cappadocia and Galatia, same as most people do I expect. After that, I inadvertently figured out how to make my campaign extremely interesting. I had been eyeing Armenian lands since they destroyed my ally, Trapezos. I decided to go ahead and seize their two closest towns while they were busy finishing off the Kartlii elsewhere. Shortly thereafter, every Black Sea faction and their landlocked neighbor declared war on me. Things got even more interesting when I accepted an alliance offer from the Seleucid. It seemed that every turn, 2-3 factions went to war with them and, by honoring our alliance, I was soon at war with every non Greek faction in the eastern part of the map.Quote:
Originally Posted by nearchos
My lands are swarming with agents. Every turn I get an average of 3 enemy agent actions against my towns/provinces/armies. The makeup of the enemy armies is much better. The issues I'm seeing now are enemies coming in and conquering settlements close to my borders and then leaving them completely undefended while I've got an army sitting in my border province right next door. Also, for some inexplicable reason, Armenia, which has plenty of troops, is sending its armies via the sea even though we share a common border with the province they are attacking.
In short, if you want an interesting campaign, ally with the Seleucid early on and honor the alliance until the bitter end.
There are still issues to improve upon, but I do feel the game is heading in the right direction.
Well, you have a point here and i thank you very much, this must be the reason since i am very careful with my diplomatic moves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacque Schtrapp
I only have defencive alliances with Bythinia and Trapezon, and some non aggrecion pacts and a lot of trade aggreements and moreover im very carefull with my moves not to cause non nessecary unfriendly attitude by any other faction.
So perhaps in reality what seemed to me as an extremely passive AI is just a more balanced diplomacy.
Last night, i finished of the Colchis and the Cimerians, the last were hard to fight, i destroyed their main armies with 50% cassualties and then took their last settlement with the help of 3 armies of Royal Schythia.
So now i own 2/3 of the Black Sea coast and will plan my next moves.
I suppose from now on i will have to bleed since my target now is to unite all of Asia minor so i will go to war with Selleucids and their satrapies.
Well, Jacque Schtrapp gave a very interesting tip about diplomacy, since i was till now very carefull with my diplomatic desisions.Quote:
Hmm...perhaps because I started with Patch 3, the basic behavior patterns set in place at campaign start continue despite the patch, but if I start another with Patch 4, they'd act more passively? Does that even make sense...could the programming work out that way (as an unintended consequence)?
I was trying to see as many green or at least yellow faces as i could.
I agree with that, and moreover there must be a time during the campaign, when you have reached a level of power, there must be an other faction close to the players power, so in order to complete the campaign you have to battle an other empire with strong economy and high level units.Quote:
Seriously, I wonder when CA will correct the problem of major historical factions like Rome, Carthage, Egypt or Seleucid being destroyed so early in the game.
A final inevitable clash of empires.
During the only campaign i have completed, at the end, i was just mooving 10 of my 15 armies around conquering in the process and the most powerful faction at the end was some german congederation with 9 settlements. After the CW there was no serious opposition.
Just a short update on my situation here. Unfortunately this didn't fix the issues. I still have freeze ups on the Campaign map, just by selecting an action or waiting for tool tips to appear. Maybe this is just a general performance issue that just now crops up, where I'm roughly 100 turns into the Campaign. QuickSave (Ctrl + S) has become my best friend now so I don't loose any progress, but it's still annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkhorn1x
Are you still referring to Patch 3? If so...and I hate to say this...your best bet might be to just start a new campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
I had problems with Patch3 beta. CTD/freezes, glitchy campaign map camera movement. I validated the cache, played with video quality settings, nothing much helped. Then I started a second campaign. Instantly the game ran smoothly. No problems with Patch 3 afterward, either beta or live.
I did not have this experience with Patches 2 or 4beta, both of which ran perfectly for me on in-progress games upon installation. So I suspect there was something specific to Patch 3 which somehow conflicted with data in save files of prior-existing campaigns.
I don't know if it's a post patch 3 exclusiv feature, but my generals are systematically murdered when they are in the center of the action. Now it's a common combo for the AI to murder a general before attacking his army. It's already very difficult to identify to a general with 1TPY and no family tree thing but with those systematic murders on top of it, it's getting boring.
With Epirus I got Pyrrus wounded at the second turn of the campaign and when he finally came back, well, he won an heroic victory and was murdererd just after .
As a player I don't use this murder thing with generals as I don't think it's quite realistic, (you got almost 80% chances of succes at level 2) but the AI seems to really dig that feature. And when you're at war with 3 different factions you have easily 6,7 agents swirling around your troops and breaking everything. I'm ok with the sabotage, unrest, etc.. but not the automatic murders.
When you are at war with the AI, they move aggressively alright if they feel strong enough (this is patch IV beta). The standard AI move is: move an army (or two) close to your army, then attack with the third army dragging the other armies in as reinforcements. Usually, the autoresolve shows my army being annihilated to the man. Of course, playing out the battle gives a different result.Quote:
Originally Posted by nearchos
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
I'm also starting to notice that a lot of factions declare war on you and never actually send any troops against your lands. I believe part of this is because many of the factions that have declared war on me are landlocked and unable to ally with my other enemies or secure military access to get troops to my lands. Thus, we sit in a perpetual state of war with neither side actually able to engage the other.
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.
Lastly, it seems as if there is some reluctance on the part of my enemies to actually attack me. As Pontus, I control the entire northern coastline of Anatolia. I'm at war with literally every Black Sea faction, yet no one has attempted to land troops even though all but one of my armies are in the east fighting Media Atropatene and assorted others. Cimmeria has two armies sitting well off the coast in fleet form. Neither has moved in many turns now.
Interesting, but im not sure if this is something good or bad for the campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
Is patch 4 live?
Im asking because steam is downloading 1.4 GB at this moment.
Nope.
Yes, agent spam is annoying. It's the one thing that keeps me from putting the difficulty all the way up there... AIs just get more agents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
Interestingly, the game has become quite unstable for me since patch 4 beta. I'm consistently getting CTDs enough to end my Parthian campaign - it crashes loading the battle after the auto-save. I've gad no problems at all prior to P4B.
Not sure if this is a bug or a feature with this patch but after convincing the Seleucids to give up all their satrapies I couldn't conduct normal diplomacy with the former client states only the basic stuff as if they were still satrapies. Anyone else come across this?
Well, after steam completed the instalation, instead 1.4.0. i was running since patch 4 beta, i saw that it was back to 1.3.0.Quote:
Originally Posted by nearchos
Not sure what was dounloaded.
Patch 4 improved the framerate for battles for me.
I started a new campaign with Rome yesterday, as I wanted to try them out finally. This didn't help with the freezes though and twenty turns in already three generals have gone mad! This is patch 3 by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
I've also learnt to fear the heavy Slinger focus of the northern Barbarians. I lost a whole legion of 1200 against 2100 Insubres, half of them Slingers. Their barrage was enough to demoralize my units and rout them after a short fight. Playing on Hard has already paid off.
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)
Anyone else notice that the 'jump to region' button has gone missing from the 'Region xxx population is upset/rebellious/all fluffy' messages in patch 4 beta? It's kinda annoying as I can't remember more than about 4 province names at a time!
The lesson I learned was to take some Equites with me in the future. My army was 4 Hastati, 4 Prinicpes, 2 Triarii and some assorted Leves and Velites. Was nice to see them get slaughtered though, because after reading about Rome on the forums and my first battles against the Etruscan and Carthaginians, I was afraid it would be too easy. That's why I decided against teching Legionnaries right away, I want to roleplay it a bit as well, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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).Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by fallen851
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacque Schtrapp
It looks like a chess "pat".Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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).
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 !
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
I will try Pontus soon. For some reason, I am not convinced there will be any more challenge there, LOL.
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.
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.
Guys does anyone know when the selucids will be made playable?
I heard within the next few weeks, but who really knows, right?
OK, VH campaign (VH battles), Pontus, patch IV beta (with the latest hotfix as of today), here's the chronological report:Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
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).
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).Quote:
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 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.
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.Quote:
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).
And also, CA must reconsider the actual difficulty in game, to be according to the supposed level you pick.Quote:
Originally Posted by fallen851
Because at the moment there are only two levels, legendary and an other and the distance between them is huge.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by fallen851
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?
Seems to me that you are ready for Legendary :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
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? :-)
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 !Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp4
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
The lack of radar map is annoying but it does make battles harder, which is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
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.
Exact same experience and feeling, its like they fix some things with P4 but they got AI agressiveness brokken again.Quote:
So, to me patch 4 is better diplomacy interaction with AI factions, but agressiveness going back to pre-patch 2, unfotunately
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
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.
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.
Since patch 3 the AI is not so bad in siege as a defender. But as an attacker it's a completely different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
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.