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

[Slaists]

have you tried a group of mixed missiles? javelins + slingers for example?

[Bramborough]

have you tried a group of mixed missiles? javelins + slingers for example?

No, I did not try that in these custom-battle trials. In previous gameplay, however, I do remember having a mixed Roxo group of HAs and armored HAs. Froze.

I think the bug is still bad enough that trying to manage a nomad army full of HA variants remains problematic. I can probably now live, however, with a more typical army containing a few missile support troops. Will be annoying not to be able to group them, but do-able.

I regard this as merely a temporary work-around to enable continued play with Patch7 beta, not even remotely a "solution". Still needs fixing before Patch 7 goes live.

[Myth]

have you tried a group of mixed missiles? javelins + slingers for example?

I usually go with a 3/3 mix once i get more of my core units up.

[Slaists]

I usually go with a 3/3 mix once i get more of my core units up.

@Myth, my question was related to testing the bug that resulted in crashes when missile units were grouped together. Lucky for us, it seems, CA has fixed that bug with the official release of the patch 7.

[Fridge]

Haven't played with the non beta patch 7 yet, but I notice in the patch notes there's no mention of the new feature (?) where exempting provinces from tax no longer takes them out of the food chain... can anyone confirm it's still there?

[Hooahguy]

So I fiddled around with patch 7 today and I can confirm that the exemption is still there. Though I was playing with a campaign from patch 1 so maybe it didnt take effect or something.

[Slaists]

Shameful display: settlement defending AI, patch VII (look at the kill count of my slingers). The AI is still just standing in the streets and taking it in the face. And it was not so that the AI just had some weak garrison there. Actually, the AI had 7000+ troops versus my 2,600. About 3000 of the defending AI troops were killed by 3 slinger units.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Hooahguy]

I think that the AI is getting confusing signals here, that one one hand they need to hang back and defend the CP but on the other hand they are getting mowed down by enemies. CA really needs to sort this out.

[Jacque Schtrapp]

Shameful display: settlement defending AI, patch VII (look at the kill count of my slingers). The AI is still just standing in the streets and taking it in the face.

I started a patch VII game as Sparta on VH. I've tried marching my units in formation to engage Epirean defenders the same way I would have in any previous patch. So far, Epirean slingers are annihilating my units before they can close. Literally whole units being wiped out without ever reaching enemy lines. I think slingers have been ridiculously buffed this patch in addition to the wonky AI issue you are observing.

[Slaists]

I started a patch VII game as Sparta on VH. I've tried marching my units in formation to engage Epirean defenders the same way I would have in any previous patch. So far, Epirean slingers are annihilating my units before they can close. Literally whole units being wiped out without ever reaching enemy lines. I think slingers have been ridiculously buffed this patch in addition to the wonky AI issue you are observing.

Well, in field battles, there is actually a distinct skirmish phase now. To counter their slingers, bring your own slingers (or any missiles) and kill the AI missiles before more important units get harmed. Slingers, javelins, etc, are cheap: no worries if they die while battling AI's counterparts.

[Slaists]

Shameful display: broken MPC

Patch 7 has introduced some bug which renders MPC unplayable. Every 10 turns or so, campaigns become desynced (unplayable). Exchanging save files between the host and the opposite player does not help to fix the issue (as it used with ETW for example). Duh...

Don't lose your capital

I am not sure this was present before patch 7, but now, if you lose your original capital your trade does not revert to the new one. Playing as Epirus, I migrated to Italy and lost Apollonia to Spartans. The capital got moved to Brundissium, but my original trade routes still went back to Apollonia disappearing in the middle of the Adriatic (not going to any settlement). The tool-tip on top of the trader routes showed them "blockaded" (neither my new capital, nor the trade partner ports were blockaded at the time).

[Mhantra]

Shameful display: broken MPC

Patch 7 has introduced some bug which renders MPC unplayable. Every 10 turns or so, campaigns become desynced (unplayable). Exchanging save files between the host and the opposite player does not help to fix the issue (as it used with ETW for example). Duh...

Don't lose your capital

I am not sure this was present before patch 7, but now, if you lose your original capital your trade does not revert to the new one. Playing as Epirus, I migrated to Italy and lost Apollonia to Spartans. The capital got moved to Brundissium, but my original trade routes still went back to Apollonia disappearing in the middle of the Adriatic (not going to any settlement). The tool-tip on top of the trader routes showed them "blockaded" (neither my new capital, nor the trade partner ports were blockaded at the time).

Actually, playing a new campaign as Sparta, it didn't matter that I got a new port city from Epirus. I still could not open new trade, same tooltip message. I started without a port city, so I think that is the same thing.

[Sp4]

This is kind of hilarious but sad at the same time.

[Slaists]

Actually, playing a new campaign as Sparta, it didn't matter that I got a new port city from Epirus. I still could not open new trade, same tooltip message. I started without a port city, so I think that is the same thing.

For Sparta it sort (in CA fashion) of makes sense. You need an uninterrupted road from a port to your capital for the trade to flow. Unless, as Sparta, you get Athens, you cannot have that. Then again, it beats me, why Sparta would not have a port. Peloponnesus has plenty of coastal settlements in real life.

In my case though, I had a new capital and a new port there: Brundissium. The trade did not revert to that. I still had my original trade agreements in the diplo interface. Even had trade routes on the map, but they ended in the middle of the sea...

[CaptainCrunch]

Shameful display: settlement defending AI, patch VII (look at the kill count of my slingers). The AI is still just standing in the streets and taking it in the face. And it was not so that the AI just had some weak garrison there. Actually, the AI had 7000+ troops versus my 2,600. About 3000 of the defending AI troops were killed by 3 slinger units.

Damn, more like riflemen !

I'm still experiencing this while both assaulting and defending settlements. Also - while AI defends, the AI unit under attack will often fall back after taking too many casualties and send another unit up to replace it, but then gets confused and starts going back and forth getting itself annihilated. AI cav unit generals also sit there and get completely destroyed by missile units quite often.

While attacking with a naval assault, the AI will often send its missile units up as soon as they land, but leave its heavy infantry parked indefinitely on the beach even well after their missile units have been wiped out and they've started taking heavy fire.

I started a patch VII game as Sparta on VH. I've tried marching my units in formation to engage Epirean defenders the same way I would have in any previous patch. So far, Epirean slingers are annihilating my units before they can close. Literally whole units being wiped out without ever reaching enemy lines. I think slingers have been ridiculously buffed this patch in addition to the wonky AI issue you are observing.

I've had mixed results with slingers, sometimes they hardly ding heavy infantry, sometimes they severely cripple them under the same circumstances. On the other hand, sometimes they waste half their ammunition just to kill a few levies.

Peltasts en masse are absolutely lethal to standing heavy infantry though, even from the front. I've seen hoplite walls literally shredded in seconds from javelin fire (Hard difficulty).

[Slaists]

I feel, for armored, especially shielded, units, the chance to deflect lighter missiles (no damage done) should be raised considerably. The way it stands now, this is just another Empire Total War (line infantry shootout) just with Roman era clothing... Missile units did not rule the battlefield in this time period (with a few notable exceptions such as Carrhae), armored melee infantry did.

I've had mixed results with slingers, sometimes they hardly ding heavy infantry, sometimes they severely cripple them under the same circumstances. On the other hand, sometimes they waste half their ammunition just to kill a few levies.

What you see there is the new hitpoint system at work (+ the law of large numbers). If the shootout does not go on for long, the missile units do not have a chance to ebb sufficiently high number of hitpoints away from armored units so you see now kills even though, the targets have been damaged (their hitpoints lowered). If the shootout goes on just for a second longer, you'd see mass casualties among the same targets.

Then there is focused fire (that's where the law of large numbers comes in): as several AI missile units focus on one armored unit of yours even if there is some chance to fully deflect missile damage, the sheer number of incoming projectiles will result in successful hit-rolls that will translate in mass casualties within seconds.

There is more to that, of course, if you closely observe your missile units, you'll notice that sometimes there is some terrain obstacle that obscures their field of fire. Missiles end up hitting some bump in the earth not the target. In that case, you'll see lower casualties. And frequently the obstacle is hard to notice from higher vantage point. You really have go down to the ground level. There is also the direction from which missiles hit. If they hit the unit from the front or the left (shielded) side, the chance of success is lower than if they hit from the right or the rear.

Again, the way it is implemented is as if this was a line-infantry shootout form Empire Total War (or Fall of the Samurai).

[Bramborough]

A rather interesting thread at TWC on this topic: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ombat-Analysis

Note that he wrote this up pre-patch 7, so does not reflect latest tweaks.

[Slaists]

A rather interesting thread at TWC on this topic: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ombat-Analysis

Note that he wrote this up pre-patch 7, so does not reflect latest tweaks.

Yeah, patch 7 rebalanced missile armor piercing significantly. Now it is more like it was around patch 2.

As to crzyrndm's writeup, there is some contradiction in his text (I know he is quoting Jack Lusted on this). In one spot he is saying that it does not matter where the projectile hits the soldier. Then, in another spot he is saying that left side and front actually gets more protection. So, which one is it? Does it matter where the projectile hits or not? LOL. I live by the assumption that the left side and front are better shielded.

Also, while he wrote this up, shield did not have the complete block probability (the chance that an incoming missile will do no damage at all). Now shields add this protection (since patch 5 I think).

One thing that struck me as I re-read this post is that "armor provides a chance to ignore normal damage". So, another reason why we see random results in missile performance is just that: randomness. Sometimes, armor succeeds in blocking the normal damage part of incoming missiles, sometimes it does not. Focused fire and pro-longed fire ensures that the law of large numbers kicks in and we see mass casualties even among armored units.

By the way, testudo for Romans is still useless. I lose more men when advancing in testudo than when I run straight up to the enemy.

[CaptainCrunch]

I haven't looked at the numbers myself, but I'd be interested to know what modifiers get applied to armored units vs missiles now. Shield side vs right side vs rear, etc. Since they added the animation of units raising their shields up overhead to defend against taking fire, do they actually receive a buff, or is it simply cosmetic? Cuz often it doesn't seem like it does anything to protect them. I think I also read somewhere that they added some AP damage to all archer units now.

Edit: Slaists beat me to it

[Myth]

I've had pleasantly challenging experiences with the CAI post patch 7. It now uses forced march and multiple armies to force a choice on me on which settlement to defend and which to lose next turn. It's much smarter than it's previous "camp all my armies in one province" mentality.

[Slaists]

I've had pleasantly challenging experiences with the CAI post patch 7. It now uses forced march and multiple armies to force a choice on me on which settlement to defend and which to lose next turn. It's much smarter than it's previous "camp all my armies in one province" mentality.

Yup, it has its bright moments (the CAI). But, for the most part, it is utterly idiotic... The other day, we were playing an MPC with my friend (before the desync bug trashed our game) and I forced a very hard defeat on him as I was controlling an AI army in Britain. He was playing Iceni, the AI enemy was Brigantes I think. Iceni army was obiterated. Brigantes had a free pass to Iceni capital. What do you think the AI Brigantes did next turn? Did they move in for the final strike? Nope, it surrendered to Iceni...

I haven't looked at the numbers myself, but I'd be interested to know what modifiers get applied to armored units vs missiles now. Shield side vs right side vs rear, etc. Since they added the animation of units raising their shields up overhead to defend against taking fire, do they actually receive a buff, or is it simply cosmetic? Cuz often it doesn't seem like it does anything to protect them. I think I also read somewhere that they added some AP damage to all archer units now.

Edit: Slaists beat me to it

Going by what Jack Lusted has said, the raised shields is a pure cosmetic thing. It does not matter where the missile hits. A collision gets recorded, a roll carried out and then, depending on the roll, damage applied. The exception to this seems the left side and the front of the unit. There it gets extra armor protection (which means higher chance of avoiding the normal damage part of the missile). Since patch 5 or thereabouts, shields add a chance to avoid missile damage altogether.

By the way, regarding that cosmetic animation thing (where raised shields meaning nothing), it work similarly for battle animations where units only duel 1 on 1 rather than multiple units attacking one target simultaneously). As was explained by CA somewhere else (cannot find that bit in the net now), only the animations display duels. The real battle damage calculation accounts for several units damaging one target (for example when you hold a target unit with one of yours and hit the target from the rear).

[CaptainCrunch]

... Going by what Jack Lusted has said, the raised shields is a pure cosmetic thing. It does not matter where the missile hits. A collision gets recorded, a roll carried out and then, depending on the roll, damage applied. The exception to this seems the left side and the front of the unit. There it gets extra armor protection (which means higher chance of avoiding the normal damage part of the missile). Since patch 5 or thereabouts, shields add a chance to avoid missile damage altogether.

By the way, regarding that cosmetic animation thing (where raised shields meaning nothing), it work similarly for battle animations where units only duel 1 on 1 rather than multiple units attacking one target simultaneously). As was explained by CA somewhere else (cannot find that bit in the net now), only the animations display duels. The real battle damage calculation accounts for several units damaging one target (for example when you hold a target unit with one of yours and hit the target from the rear).

Damn shame. Since the game mechanics can't account for precise hit detection, do the numbers still take the fact that the shields are raised into account though? If not, it's odd that they simply didn't add shield defense probability in for applicable units that are standing (or especially moving) in guard mode not engaged (ie shields up overhead). I think if the unit isn't attacking (or engaged), and is only taking fire from one direction (and that direction is from the frontal hemisphere, which includes overhead), shield size/defense should come into play. This seems like a reasonable solution to me for heavy infantry that carry large shields like scutums or hoplons holding them up for extra protection.

I think heavily armored units that are turtled up in that mode should be considerably harder to damage with missile fire, you should be forced to hit them with real sustained heavy volume, engage from multiple angles or break them out of that stance by engaging with infantry (which is how I approach it anyway).

[Slaists]

My guess, is, nope. The raised shields do not add extra protection "from the top". The only exception would be testudo, but that is a formation that you trigger. Once triggered, testudo adds flat armor and deflection bonus to the whole unit.

Shields add different deflection chance bonuses depending on their size (the latest patch notes implied so). So, there is that. In my experience, heavily armored units are considerably easier to kill if I hit them with missiles in the rear. So, the front/left side effect seems to be true.

[Slaists]

Night battles are bugged if reinforcements are coming in by sea

If you have a night-fighter general and are attacking, your nightfigher ability will have no effect on AI reinforcements coming in by sea. See the pic, that fleet with ballista was clearly identified as "not being able to join a night battle" on the pre-battle screen. However, here it is... LOL. I have seen it happen several times.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And... guess what!? This feature is broken in reverse too... If you are an attacker, and have 2 nightfighter general led armies, only the first one joins the battle. LOL, this was something that worked properly even in RTW 1...

[Myth]

It's a new mechanic. After all, it was added in Barbarian Invasion, not in the original Rome game. Give them time to figure it out

[BroskiDerpman]

Ahhh no worries, it's not like 8 years is much time to work on night battles.

[Slaists]

It's a new mechanic. After all, it was added in Barbarian Invasion, not in the original Rome game. Give them time to figure it out

Oh yeah, forgot. This really is a new feature added with Barb Invasion, not earlier than that.

[Lord of the Isles]

I started a patch VII game as Sparta on VH. I've tried marching my units in formation to engage Epirean defenders the same way I would have in any previous patch. So far, Epirean slingers are annihilating my units before they can close. Literally whole units being wiped out without ever reaching enemy lines. I think slingers have been ridiculously buffed this patch in addition to the wonky AI issue you are observing.

Same here. I read this thread before deciding to upgrade to patch 7 from patch 5 but didn't pay enough attention. Oh well.

A unit of African Pikeman (well armoured Carthaginian phalanx heavy infantry) got ... evaporated seems the best word for it ... by 2 or 3 units of slingers yesterday. I see Slaists' advice is to use my own skirmishers as mutual cannon fodder but it seems a little contrived to plan strategy around compensating for CA's weird changes. Also as Slaists notes, the new hit point system seems to produce this sequence: they come under fire but take few casualties at first. Your attention wanders to another area of the battle and then, perhaps just 15 or 20 seconds later, you notice the unit card troop number whirring down like a demented altimeter in a plummeting plane. Your 160 unit now has 30-odd survivors and is breaking. Evaporation.

I've had a quick look at mods since without one that changes this the game isn't worth playing IMHO. None have seemed exactly what I want so far (or else have their own bugs still being worked on). I'll just have to wait. That'll teach me to allow a patch upgrade without thinking long and hard about it.

[Empire*Of*Media]

i have one question please...
1.now with the update 7 is it necessary to install updates from 1-5?!
2. is it REALLY Save game Compatible?!
thanks for your reply.......

[Lord of the Isles]

i have one question please...
1.now with the update 7 is it necessary to install updates from 1-5?!
2. is it REALLY Save game Compatible?!
thanks for your reply.......

1. Yes. In fact, with Steam, you won't have any option to choose to get or not get different patches - it always just upgrades you to the most recent once you have connected online. Even sometimes when you have the game Properties (right click on game in game library) set to "Do not automatically keep this game up to date".

But even were that not so, since later patches change code only there in earlier patches, it wouldn't be possible to miss out intermediate patches. What would be a good analogy ... imagine you are buying a flat. You like the view from a 7th floor flat but hate climbing the stairs to reach it. Can you have a 7th floor flat but miss out floors 3-5 so that you only have to climb four flights of stairs? No. The higher levels need all the lower ones since they are built on them.

2. Don't know for sure. I believe recent patches are supposed to be compatible but there is always the chance that even though your game won't crash, some things might behave a little strangely in the game. I always try if I can to finish a game I'm enjoying before I go online and allow an upgrade.