Printable View
Yes you are right, i thought of that, but i had a realy hard time and securing my other borders and concetrating against my major enemies at the east and south was a relieve at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
I will see, it will be a long campaign for me, so things might be different later on.
In my Roman campaign i get a lot of pressure on the British Islands (Rebels and another faction) with pretty large & experienced armies. Besides i am in a ongoing brawl for the province of Sarmatia. The "two-horse-head-icon" faction sends in waves of invaders plus has strong garisons in their homelands. A pretty tough conflict going on on both fronts.
I am currently refitting a Legion with artillery in my homelands to face the British units and concentrate my most skilled legions on the Eastern front.
I think the patches work fine....the last time i had such an intense threat to my empire was in EB or Darth´s ETW/NTW mod.....
I was allied to bithninia and then when I declared on Seleucid they were at war with me. Then we made peace and 10-15 turns later they declared on me..... Im fighting every Seleucid satrapy. Siraces to the north, Pergamon, Turdiante? (unsure of spelling) etc. At last count it was 12 factions vs me cimmera and trapezos
Just curious: did you start that campaign from scratch with patch V? Good progress there, mate :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Subedei
The update by the CA guy last week seemed to be saying that the patches will be further apart now that they are focusing on deeper systems rather than simple bug fixes. He said weeks, not months, though. I am hoping, though, that maybe there is one more weekly to come out Friday, maybe patch 6 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
@ Slaists: No, in case "from scratch" means "from the beginning". Got the game on the day of release. Got my behind handed over in my 1st camapaign. Started a new one which runs eversince (smth. like 24 A.D. right now). I am pretty slow, yet methinks the patches work considering my actual campaign. It took me a while to get used to the "new" game mechanics.
Plus: usually i prefer Eastern cultures (and hunt down Romans, hehe), but i have to admit it is fun to play as Rome. As soon as the mentioned conflicts are "resolved" I think about goingi nto Egypt/ Near East. After that i will start a new campaign, maybe Seleucids or one of the Nomad fractions.
I'd recommend starting from the scratch then. With patch V, the starting campaign is miles better than what it used to be (even with patch IV). You missing out on some fun there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subedei
Still playing as the Seleucids. I'm finding myself disappointed in the way the AI handles reinforcing armies. I've had several battles now where they've cornered one of my armies with three of their own. At the beginning of the battle, one of their reinforcing armies will come from the side or rear of the map. At first I was greatly alarmed, as I assumed they would surround and annihilate me. Instead, the reinforcing army skirts my forces and joins with the main attacking force. It's been the same in every battle with more than one enemy army.
Once all of the enemy armies are conjoined, instead of forming a longer battle line and massively outflanking my force, they form a line roughly the same length as mine, only several ranks deep. When our forces collide, they'll try and send 1-2 units around each flank, the same as they would if it were a 1v1 fight, and the rest of their troops pile straight into my pikemen and get destroyed. I've won battle after battle where I was massively outnumbered, my cavalry was rendered ineffective, and my flanks were beginning to crumble, all because they can't handle pikes or reinforce in an intelligent manner. It's starting to get a little redundant.
As others are mentioning, I have seen enemy armies raiding, though it has always been in a situation where I have a nearby army that can come and crush them that same turn.
I never let them combine. I hit one army before it can join in. I've been outnumbered 3-1 and just fought the one that would reinforce first, then the second, and then the static army.
That is something I'd like to check : in my post patch 5 campaign with the Seleucid, at turn 50, Egypt, Carthage and Rome are slowly expanding. Anybody noticed the same ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
At turn 125 of my Seleucid campaign, Egypt is allied with everyone and had no where to expand to, Garamantia eliminated Carthage and controls that area of North Africa, and Rome is at war with several barbarian tribes, but hasn't conquered any territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
Well, my Pontus campaign has been rolling since late in Patch3. All three of these large factions flamed out early. Egypt cannot come back, all their former territory is now mine. Carthage still pops up but gets pummeled quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
Since Patch 5, however, Rome has reappeared and is doing okay. They've only got a few settlements, but these appear to be functioning well. They've built several large non-starving armies (I don't have a spy close enough to see what kind of composition). My hope is that they take the fight back to the Veneti (who originally bumped them off) and reclaim the Italian peninsula.
Thanks for the recomendation. What are the most notable improvements?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
Why is Egypt even alive at turn 50 or 125 with the Seleucids? Aegyptus has 3 resources in its minor settlements, it's easily one of the richest and most valuable provinces in the game! Eearly Egyptian armies cannot stand to even a signle well composed Seleucid stack. Letting Egypt live means you give the AI leave to exploit 2 grain + 1 iron resources, not to mention two wonders of the world. There is literally nothing better for one stack to do than conquer Egypt and then with reinforcements - Lybia and Carthage (two verry good, 4 settlement provinces there too)
I prefer to focus on my eastern front for now. I sent a full stack to help Persia and Media and I help Sardes against Bythinia and Pergamon. Rhodes, Sparta and Athens are helping me on the West. When those two fronts will be taken care of I'll proceed with Cyprus and Egypt. But yeah, it might not be the more logical and strategic plan. Nor the most historical one. I just do it for roleplay purpose. My three dynastic leaders had the love-greeks trait from the beginning so their first purpose is to crush any rebelling attitude from the easterners and strengthen bonds with the greek factions. In the meantime Spartan AI managed to be conquered by Knossos, so I'll have to liberate them.... I might be embroiled in a spiral hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Myth
I'm disappointed, CA doesn't want to take care this "no future for major AI factions" trouble. THat and the family tree doesn't seem to be in their priorities. A mix of the family tree and the actual system where family members would be concretely represented when they command an army and would only interact through the faction screen when they rule as statesmen could be awesome ! But I'm rambling again.
You'll see much more active diplomatic AI at the start of the campaign (which can heavily affect the player's chances of expansion, trade, etc.). You'll see AI's forming defensive blocks (with the player and against the player and against other AI's). All in all, it is a much more engaging campaign than it used to be before patch 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subedei
My original post was too optimistic. Now i am near turn 100 with the same Macedon campaign. I purposely avoided expanding into Italy AND the East [instead steam-rolling towards the Northern seas via Germany] to see how the major AI factions will be doing without my interference. At this point, AI Seleucids have been destroyed by Media Atropene (they control territory all the way to the Mediterranean, but nothing really "empire like"; with close to 40 settlements, I am by far the biggest faction on the map); Carthage has been destroyed by desert folks who even hold some territory in Italy. Rome is still around, but mostly spends time at the seas (with its armies) losing territory to one or another minor (then retaking it; then losing again). So, all in all, it is still "no future for major AI factions": just with a little delay (compared to the game before patch 5).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
Started a new Carthage campaign with patch 5 and it seems that while the major factions don't have large empires a number of factions across the entire map have consolidated in a series of local powerhouses. So rather than a mess of individual factions and one or two very large minor faction empires there is real competition between several mid size empires. So long as it doesn't settle into a stalemate I prefer this to no empires or major factions always winning.
The problem is that no matter what faction the player picks, as soon as size of 30-40 settlements is reached the sense of danger completely disappears from the game: and that's pretty much still early game... Don't know. I feel I miss realm divide, LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seyavash
What do you mean by powerhouses ? How many provinces or settlements ? Because if the AI really knows how to maintain an empire without collapsing under its own weight, then, the major Ai faction's trouble can be taken care of through mods...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seyavash
@ Slaists: missing realm divide, it says a lot :-(
but i think they have not fixed this issue that by starting a new campaign and going for it on and on........but again great kingdoms & empires fall easily like Carthage & Rome & .........
besides< still the shortages of food will easily destroy MOST of the factions !! a very boring easy campaign to complete!!
It's a pity cause I'm very positively impressed by some of the CAI moves and the interactions between AI factions on the diplomatic scale are starting to give life to te campaign map ! But yeah, a simgle mod can take care of that issue I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by EasternSpartakus
Part of it is, I think, that we know these were great kingdoms who survived for long times but in the game world these are just factions. Carthage can fall because of bad luck or bad decisions and so on. No one really complains that you take Sparta and rule the world so to speak so it shouldn't be odd that Rome can, in fact, fall early on.
I think Patch 5 corrected the army composition's trouble ! The eastern's factions I fight as the Seleucids brought many thorax units (pikemen and swordmen) and a perfect ratio of inf, missile, cav troops !
And there's this 4 star enemy general, couldn't spell his name properly, who annihilated one of my stacks and succeeded in escaping when I destroyed his stack ! All my generals on the eastern front must dream of choping his head now ! That's the TW I love : I was so pissed that I couldn't have any mortal tenacious enemies in Shogun 2 ! At first occasion they were comitting suicide in some fortress assault.
@ AntiDamascus : I see your point. It's just that I'd prefer to fight a powerfull Roman empire, playing as Carthage, and have to deal with rebellious african's tribe, than the opposite. Maybe, it's a lack of imagination. But as I love to read antiquity historic books I love when the course if events stay close tp it with some variations though.
When I play EU4, I see various scenari, but the main empires are ususally the same we saw in history, with slight variations.
.
RTW 2 starvation post patch 5
After patch 5, I see the AI starving only in the cases when it has been left with one region which happens to be the capital (walled) settlement. In that case, the AI is likely to starve due to lack of farms. In any case, the incidence of starving seems to be quite reduced compared to patch 3 for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
EU4 versus RTW 2
In EU4, 8 historically well performing AI nations get "lucky nation bonus" (better morale, better battle stats, better monarchs; the latter one is actually a huge bonus in EU4). This practically ensures these nations succeed if the game is played long enough (and the human player does not "take care" of the lucky ones early). The historical lucky nations feature can be turned off at the game start. With this feature turned off, the AI universe collapses in a random mess in EU4 same as in RTW-2. One can elect to have "random lucky nations" instead of "historical lucky nations": this results in a random pick of nations becoming large and strong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
RTW 2 WAD?
Back to RTW 2, here are a few features that seem to be bugged. I am wondering what other folks here think about them (I have posted these in the official support forum too):
1. diplomatic reliability (for the player): no matter what the game difficulty this stays "steadfast" for the player with all of the AI factions except the one the player is directly at war with. Even in the latter case, it fast reverts to steadfast or close to steadfast within a few turns. Last night I tested it by declaring war on a long term military ally. Sure, I became untrustworthy with the target, but I was still steadfast with all of the target's allies and 'friends'. Surely a word should have gotten out that I was an untrustworthy scumbag...
2. dignitaries get a random trait called "military administrator" (or something sounding similar). From the name of the trait, it would seem like a good trait for the dignitary in the military administrator role. However, in the game, it gives a whooping +10% to army upkeep. All the military administrator skills give the opposite (reduction in upkeep costs).
3. corruption reduction (the 5% bonus that's supposed to accrue from completing 3 skills in each level of the academic research area; for example, the first level is supposed to give corruption reduction of 5%). However, it gives much less than that. In my last game, I checked it on a few provinces and the reduction was closer to 0.05% (could be an issue with misplaced zeroes or the decimal point, or a multiplication applies where addition was supposed to happen) than 5%. At least on the tax side, it appears a 3% bonus from technology is applied as a +3% to the tax rate; not tax rate x 0.03.
p.s. I suspect, if #1 is not working as intended, this could be a factor in the current state of AI's peacefulness with respect to the player in the late game. Also, someone on the official forum suggested the diplomatic reliability display for the player is bugged. Even though it shows as steadfast, the real value applies is lower than that. Hmm, got to explore that further.
I'm sure the military thing is just a whoopsie that someone put in wrong.
I dont know if others have noticed this, but when autoresolving a battle and have elephant units in my army with percentage between 85 and 90% or lower, sometimes even with over 90%, all units are having their % of casualties but the elephant units are totaly destroyed.
Same happened often with chariot units.
Im not sure wy this happens but i think it needs a fix here, perhaps the autoresolve mechanism, counts quandities and desides that with a low no of "items" a unit should be destroyed.
Just had a 150MB download for Rome II and the version number in game is now at 1.6? Though I have no idea what number it was before, I assume it was 1.5 after Patch 5? Anyone know if this was a patch or just an update for the blood and gore DLC?
It is a known glitch with the autoresolve now. Not only the elephants: cavalry is affected by this as well. Cavalry suffers way more casualties in autoresolve than the infantry. I suspect, the autoresolve damage is applied to the maximum unit size (for any type), not the actual. The maximum default unit size on ultra, for example, is 160 infantry. Let's say the autoresolve suggests 10% loss. That suggests 16 infantry should die. I guess, 16 gets blanket-style applied to all units not the relative 10% loss. Just, in the case of elephants: 16 means a wipeout, not a 10% loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by nearchos
AR gives me horrible predictions when I use pike heavy armies. It favours sword units for some reason. When I actually lead the battle I win with 100-200 men lost.
.Quote:
That suggests 16 infantry should die. I guess, 16 gets blanket-style applied to all units not the relative 10% loss. Just, in the case of elephants: 16 means a wipeout, not a 10% loss
Yes, thats the general formula but its not that strict i think, since not all units in an army suffer the same,even same type of units taking different no of casualties but any way, since i think a lot of players, choose to AR some battles for various reasons, perchaps CA should see if there is something to re balance here, because its very frustrating, to pay more than 2000 to get 48 armoured elephands, upgrade them, use them in battles to get exp, and in AR a battle, with minimal loses they just get destroyed.
Please i need HELP !
i have problem playing Multiplayer in tunngle they said u should only have patch4
so this is my question:
by updating to patch 4 or maybe future 5, WHITHOUT updating patch 1- 2 - 3, will i miss good things like high frame rate that was in other patches?!
i mean will i loose some features and fixes when i ONLY install Update/Patch 4 ?!
please help me!
Thanks !
Since these are not standalone patches I assume they don't include the previous patch in the new one. So you have to go through their order of release.
can u tell me what GREAT features that have real influence on AI & Campaign & Battle & Specially Frame Rate and Performance, i will loose when i only install update4 ?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
The AI diplomacy is simply broken before patch 5. Since patch 5, the AI's form alliance blocks that sometimes are tricky to deal with (a good thing).Quote:
Originally Posted by EasternSpartakus
no i said what good things i will loose by not installing update 1 to 3, when i ONLY WANT TO INSTALL UPDATE 4! not 5!Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
You will probably mess up your game.
Update on the patches:
Quote:
Hi all,
There’s been a bit of confusion over the various updates to ROME II recently and what’s coming next, so here’s a quick summary.
First a bit of technical detail on what happens when we update a TW game, because that will hopefully help with the explanation.
When we release a patch or DLC for our games, we are of course making changes to the game. Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of changes; code changes (changes to the games executable file, i.e. Rome2.exe) and content changes (changes to the assets that the game uses, including models, audio, text, the database etc. that come in the form of .pack files in the game’s data folder).
Code changes need to go to all players, to keep the version and experience of the game the same for everybody. This also ensures that everybody’s version of the game is compatible with new content. This is especially important for multiplayer, so that all players are playing the same version of the game. This means that sometimes when we release DLC everyone downloads the data in a patch even if they don’t buy the DLC so that their version of the game is current and they can see the new units or factions when they play against someone using them in multiplayer.
Content changes can be made without code changes. Different players can also own different content of course. For example, one player may own the Total War: ROME II Nomadic Tribes Culture Pack DLC, and another may not. However, in this case, both players will still need to have the same version of the game, and so the same code changes. All players will have received an update when Total War: ROME II Nomadic Tribes Culture Pack DLC was released, which included fixes and code to make the game aware of the new content, and some of the graphics/data to ensure that the new units show up in multiplayer correctly even if that player hasn’t purchased that DLC (or picked it up for free in the giveaway week).
Most of the time, when we release a patch or DLC, we release both code changes and content changes at the same time, so all players will experience an update, whether they get new content changes or not. If a player gains ownership of new content (by buying DLC for example), and already has the latest version of the game (latest code changes to Rome2.exe), only the extra data pack(s) of content changes will be downloaded, and not any code changes (changes to the games executable file Rome2.exe). Depending on the DLC and how much of it has already been downloaded as part of the update for the above reasons, the size of this download on purchase can vary greatly.
Patch 6
As explained in posts before, not all patches are equal in size, when we name them they are just given the next ascending number so we can track them internally as they are built and published. Patch 6 was effectively the update that allowed the game to recognise the Blood & Gore DLC yesterday, so that when you buy the DLC it works correctly with the game and, even if you choose not to buy it, we have made sure that everyone has the very latest version, so that when we patch in the future we are sure that everyone’s is at the same point.
It did also include some very minor fixes (correction for black terrain and issues running in non-administrator mode in windows for some people, namely), and we will update the patch notes page on the wiki to reflect this.
Patch 7
The core team’s main focus since patch 5 has been patch 7, which is currently being prepared for open beta. So expect to see some news on this soon.
As we’ve mentioned before, the TW team work on multiple different patches and new game content in parallel at the same time, it’s not always required that the whole team work on one specific tech issue at the same time.
Please note that we won’t specify dates on when patches will enter open beta or go live as we may decide that they need further work or content added at the last moment and we don’t want to cause disappointment.
Patch 7 certainly won’t be the last update we make to the game, as we announced before ROME II launched we have an extensive plan for post-release updates including free additional content and features: http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...al-War-ROME-II[1] !
But as Mike Simpson mentioned recently, the interval between updates will increase as deeper gameplay and AI changes take longer to test. It would be fair to say though that the frequency of updates will be higher than any TW game to date for the foreseeable future.
Thanks!
This is probably one of those posts where I demonstrate once again how I've completely missed something simple and fundamental...but here goes...
Is Steam not required to run R2? And if running via Steam, don't the patches load automatically once they go live, whether one desires or not?
If this is the case, I don't see how any typical player can possibly be running the game without Patches 1-5.
I say "typical" because I'm sure there's a few computer whizzes out there who can tinker the game however they like, and could run R2 without the patches. I'm at a loss to come up with any rational reason why they would want to do so in the first place.
@EasternSpartakus, I strongly suspect you've already got Patches 1-5 loaded. If I'm in error, well, just load them all up anyway. They've done nothing except improve the game. Immensely.
I don't think, you can do that. If you install the latest patch, the earlier ones get loaded automatically.Quote:
Originally Posted by EasternSpartakus
Unless you've pirated the game or somehow broken it (very much), you have all the updates there are.
That's a bit harsh, isn't it? I think there's an option in Steam that says 'keep this game up to date' (or som't), I assume unticking that lets you choose whether to dl updates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp4
You're onto something there. In Steam you can either keep the game on the current patch, or stop the patching process entirely.
Which means that on a fresh install, you can either have the game in release form or the current patch. No in-betweensies. Or if there is such a method, I'm unaware of it.
are you sure about that?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
or anyone agrees with Slaist?!
Slaists has it right. With Steam, you have to accept it updating to whatever the most recent patch is.Quote:
Originally Posted by EasternSpartakus
Well, there is an alternative which I've posted before: once you have some version you are content with, never start up Steam on your PC without first disabling your network interface in the appropriate Control Panel. Steam will always run off-line (no choice!) and will never notice any new patches. But no other games get updated or installed either, so this isn't for everyone. This is more extreme than the option of setting the game not to Auto-Update (right click on game and choose Properties menu) because many of us found that you couldn't rely on Steam obeying that and you ended up having to update anyway.
It wouldn't be possible to allow users to choose a selection of old patches anyway. The way programs are written just makes that impossible. It would be technically feasible to allow people to stick with some earlier state (say up to patch 4 but nothing newer, or up to patch 2 but nothing newer) but the potential problems for Steam's customer support in that would be great. So I can understand why they don't allow it - just would be handy for some of us at times.
Discussing illegal activity in any way shape or form is forbidden on these forums.
I dont want to start a new thread, but im thinking, dont know if anyone would agree, that something is missing from the ranged units informations and that is reload time,( could be the shots per min) and accuracy, ( could be the damage).
My thought is that, when a unit of archers i.e. are geting shevrons of exp or they are upgrated, you can see all the other staff going up, deffence, attack, meele etc, exept those that actually matters for these units, reload and accuracy.
And if we accept that reload=shoots per min and accuracy=damage then why these are never changing no matter what exp. or what upgrades the unit has?
In S2TW, accuracy end reload were increasing as a number for a unit through exp. and upgrades.
100% agree on the missile units...all their stats go up except for the ones that actually matter. This pertains not only to XP levels but also equipment upgrades...the workshop armorers are happy to give archers a quarter-inch longer dagger and slightly thicker cloth shirts, but apparently do not provide better BOWS.
I haven't found bowmen who I'd actually mass recruit over plain ol' slingers and jav skirmishers anyway...
Since getting the blood dlc, the last two times I've started Rome I've had quite meaty updates to download (today's is 3.7gb) - but zero information on what they are. I'm assuming they're just hotfixes rather than content changes, but it would be nice if CA provided some information. Anyone know what they are, or anywhere they're explained?
Edit: I am signed in for the beta patches, and I don't think one of them can be 5.1/6 as this was delivered with the dlc?
There has been no notification of beta updates anywhere so I'm just as confused as you are.
Was just using archers as an example. The concern extends to all missile troops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Yes, they are hotfixes and modifications t the exe in order towelcome the blood/gore thing. So that people with the DLC and people without have compatible exe to play multi. I believe there is a note about that on the official forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Yep, due to B&G, we're actually on Patch 6 now.
I guessed as much, I was just wondering why I've had two since downloading b&gQuote:
Originally Posted by Alcibiade
Had anyone problem after patch 6 like freezes etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
The last two days especialy i barely can play the game since it frrezes all the time no matter if im in campaign or in battle and i have to restart steam many times since i have the msg totalwar. launcher.exe is not responding.
I actually have played 4 or 5 turns the last 2 days.
I think this is totaly wrong, the upgrades of missile units must apply at the damage and SPM stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
CA shoud see to that.
It hasn't crashed, but I'm getting short freezes in both battles and campaign (mainly campaign) - only for a few seconds, maybe up to about 20, so it's not the end of the world, but it certainly never happened before the latest round of dlc and patches.Quote:
Originally Posted by nearchos
I'm having a similar issue. I play in windowed mode opened to fullscreen so I can freely mouse over to my second monitor. Consequently, the top of the Rome II window is visible. During the end of turn faction cycle, it will freeze for a half second several times and display Not Responding at the top of the window. It's literally not much more than an eye blink and never happens except during the end of turn process. I have a good PC rig and it is not impacting game play for me, but it has been enough to cause me to notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fridge
Didn't they say they fixed this at some point?
http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/...C02E83BF386C8/
Maybe mercury poisoning? Too much tuna from the Mediterranean? After all, Hercules was quite mad too... Achilles had his spouts as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp4
anyway, I'm chucking through a Roman campaign and I do not see too much of these. In a few cases when they pop up, it's usually the same people just developing their madness to a new level, upgrading so to say.
I don't mind a few cases across a campaign but that's like.. 2 cases in 2 turns.
https://i.imgur.com/zuIOLP2.jpg
This is an odd trait. I assume it's supposed to read "-5%" instead of "+5%". The trait title/description would seem to indicate it's supposed to be a good trait, not a bad one....
And anyway, what exactly is "Harass" in the first place? I've never gotten that particular action in the menu for any champion-type agent. Same with the term "Adventuring"...what does that mean? I see both of these terms appear in champion trait descriptions all the time, but do not see an opportunity to use them. Are they passive capabilities that are always in effect when embedded in an army in foreign territory?
just tried to give this another try... but windows mode isnt working =_= anyone else having problems with it?
alt tabbing in normal mode takes so long and causes freezes sometimes =_=
also im getting ambushed all the time... even by armies which, according to the minimap animation, just came marching into the area to attack me and so didnt lay in waiting... im even getting ambushed 2x in a row... which is ridiculous. how will i get ambushed on the exact same spot i just beat an army that tried to ambush me??!?!?!?!?!?!!
im giving up on this stuff again. its just frustrating garbage. hours of campaign play, millions of turns just to get to the enemy and then a battle of 4 minutes... in which i cannot even control anything because everything dies so fast and its impossible almost to distinguish between armies.
Well, fighting where the enemy is not, perhaps means that, this guy doesnt acctually likes to meet the enemy.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
So with these stats increased the outcome of the action is redused, as i see it at least.
Harass is one of the actions for military sabotage against a standing army and adventuring i think is the action which is performed when you chose the bottom left button when you pick the agent,next to agents details.Quote:
And anyway, what exactly is "Harass" in the first place? I've never gotten that particular action in the menu for any champion-type agent. Same with the term "Adventuring"...what does that mean? I see both of these terms appear in champion trait descriptions all the time, but do not see an opportunity to use them. Are they passive capabilities that are always in effect when embedded in an army in foreign territory?
I agree, i only used some Cretan archers during my first campaign, since then i m not using even slingers, only javs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Speaking of javs, i feel a litle idiot here but, i need to ask if anyone has ever noticed during a battle if and when a unit of thyreos spears, releasing javs?
I have notised that, thyreos spears and even the hillmen are having a blue amunition indicator but ive never seen them throwing javs.
The same i remember hapened with the Macedonian royal peltasts.
Um... it sounds like you're marching your army in forced march stance everywhere. If caught in forced march stance, your army will be ambushed. This was changed in patch 3 I think (used to be a capture flag battle; CA removed that and replaced it with ambush battles). You have to use forced march sparingly and try to land in safe spots, where the enemy cannot reach you. On the other side of the token, you can ambush the AI the same way too. The AI is programmed to land it's armies in forced march stance away from you though. So, a good way to catch the AI is to put your army in ambush stance (so the AI cannot see it). The AI is likely to end up within reach from you then ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Hillmen and thureos spears/swords have javelins same as legionaries. They throw them right before charging in just observe closely with missile trackers on. If the enemy countercharges, it is possible the throw does not get executed before the lines collide.Quote:
Originally Posted by nearchos
this is just retarded...Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
why would forced march equal getting ambushed in every occasion?!? I'm using forced march because otherwise it takes a billion years to get from one part of my empire to the other. It seems like they changed one quickfix for another instead of fixing the bloody balance.
but anyway thanks for clearing it up. not that it really matters i guess, im shelving this game again. maybe for good now.
For me, I do not have an issue with the forced marched stance being ambushable. I did dislike it at the start but for a different reason than you. AI would leave its armies in forced march stance where I could attack them easily. With patch 5, that almost never happens now. So that's fixed. As to my own armies: I just take care not to march in that stance where I can be reached by the enemy during the AI turn. Parking forced march armies in cities seems a safe bet too (the seas are pretty safe too).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
it just doesnt make any sense, even if i can avoid it relatively easily (it would make sense if forced march would increase the likelyhood of not spotting armies that are laying in waiting for an ambush, using ambush mode, but not that you get ambushed by every army that engages you, even if you beat another army on the same spot in the same turn before...). that + pretty much everything else in the few hours i played yday ticked me off so much im giving up on this game till some of the mods are getting in the next development state.
there is just very little i enjoy while playing. and many things just dont respond very intuitively. cant zoom out on my campaign map, the fog is so annoying (im aware there is a mod that disables the fog), switching between the different screens is just sluggish, family tree etc etc, cant enjoy battles because theyre over so quick. and i barely have any because i cbf to spend hours marching to my neighbour.
anyway, if u enjoy it, good for you. dont let me spoil ur fun.
Sorry to hear you're unhappy with the game. But yes, everyone's different.
If you like getting into battles right away, and have patience for it, I'd recommend Seleucids. You'll get into serious fights very soon, especially with your satrapies that will break away very soon. For some time, it will be hectic scramble back and forth between many borders. Or, for a more linear play try Pontus. VH or Legendary recommended.
I like the "forced-march equals getting ambushed" mechanic. At very least, it's tons better than the stationary flag. I think it makes sense, too. A quickly-marching army is organized for speed instead of tactical deployment and doesn't have a robust recon screen out way ahead and to the flanks. So it's great for redeploying troops across safe areas of the empire, but yeah, once getting to the combat zone, gotta get back into "normal" mode (which I tend to think of as "tactical" mode).
The AI armies use forced-march all the time, but as Slaists mentions, has gotten much better at ending movement just out of player army's reach. Can turn into a maddening tail-chase trying to run these guys to ground. Using ambush stance is a good idea, must confess I very rarely use it and should try it more often. I usually solve the problem using agents to slow them down, even immobilize on a crit. Added agent benefit is preventing reinforcement so one can defeat the AI armies in series rather than fight a pitched battle against a massive blob (although sometimes that's fun). Not only does this cut down on the casualty rate, but gets a higher number of separate battles for your family's generals to win, boosting their rank-up and gravitas.
Since I optimize for MP bonuses much better than the AI their armies are rarely, if ever, are out of reach of mine. Especially once the army traditions start racking up (Unrelenting Force etc.)
Yep, I've read your comments about that before, and recently I've been prioritizing those buffs. Unrelenting Force tradition, +cunning for generals, and obviously the agents' +zeal traits. When these things start stacking with each other it's freaking amazing how far an army can go in one turn. The only problem is that once a general or agent gets maxed, it also means that he's getting pretty old and is going to croak soon. Annoying to then have to start over with a new character. Makes that army tradition really important. <Insert obligatory "Use 2tpy or 4tpy mod!" comment here>
Another really useful thing with +cunning in generals is the ability to force night battles. Prevents reinforcement from nearby enemies...basically getting the effect of agent action(s) with 100% reliability and for free.
Well into my 3rd campaign, I thought +authority or +zeal was the way to go for a general. Started experimenting with +cunning late in the Pontus AAR campaign and was pleasantly surprised.
Haha, the AI "knows" pretty well how far your army can go with or without bonuses. Usually, now it tends to park its forced march armies right outside the reach of my standing (drill) general. Well, that's where the AI's luck runs out. My fighting general arrives from the capital and forces my army just that 1 necessary extra mile ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
For maxing generals: if you use the constant rotation in and out of the capital (for influence gain) your fighting generals will level up pretty fast since they'll be fighting almost every turn. Prioritize giving them the biggest fights of the turn: tends to give more xp. Also, pay attention to their starting age and prioritize the very young ones (usually the right side of the candidates list is younger). Agent aging: that's a different matter. Some make it into very old age though for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
I've also started to side branch some generals into zeal. The top level fear gives a significant moral debuff against the AI (I think, -30%). If your champion hits the enemy on the same turn for another 20%: can get up to 50% morale reduction. Add to that a night battle and they running upon the sight of your torches. Can specialize a gen + champ this way for laughs.
Post patch 4 generals started to die to the whisper of the wind so I just tend to keep the guy I assign to that particular army until he passes. It is not unheard of for one of my best armies which is in the thick of things to have a succession of 5 generals over the course of 5 turns. I remember in the 1.0 version when I made a Triarii unit as my Roman general he could just sit there amidst a massive blob of enemies and live, even if his unit got depleted to 10 guys.
What kind of bodyguard units are you assigning for them? That seems a significant factor, not only because of the unit's stats, but also where the general is placed within that unit's ranks for particular formations. For example, if one uses a pike unit and keeps it in phalanx formation, the boss hides in the back hunkered down...poof, dead-general problems pretty much go away. But if the unit is in non-phalanx formation (for whatever reason), then he pops out to front center, and even if engaging in close melee, stays pretty near the front rank.
I've tried with Oathsworn, Royal Spartans, Noble Cavalry, Veteran Legionaries, Hellenic Cataphracts and Royal Peltasts. All of them die almost equally as fast when they engage in combat.
It is even more annoying when they die to slinger fire while hiding behind my ranks. Seriously, i've had a Royal Spartan unit deployed in box formation on the edge of my lines and the general dies to the first volley of vanilla barbarian slingers. The unit itself then proceeds to tank through an ungodly amount of levy spears and concentrated slinger and javelin fire, and remain alive and unrouted until the end of the fight. This started happening post patch 4 IIRC and it's very pronounced and consistent, it's not a matter of player decision making. I've since given up on generals as a resource and simply take what I can get from them. Army traditions and agents have become my new army boosting mechanic.
Might be related to difficulty level, as I know you play on legendary. I noticed in the VH Athens succession game, I lost a general very early to missile fire, and he was in the back of a pike phalanx. Surprised me a bit, as I hadn't had this experience in my other campaigns.
Obviously with increased difficulty, the game should get harder in many ways. Personally, however, I don't think increased general-death chance should be one of them. Character development has always been a key feature of TW games. R2 is already plagued a bit in this area for other oft-articulated reasons. If this commander vulnerability is truly a factor (instead of maybe just a really improbable outlier streak), then exacerbates the problem.