numahr
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:11 pm

HARDE - Harsher Attrition Realism and Decisive Engagements

Sun Sep 21, 2014 8:14 pm

I am glad to release my personal tweak to the settings game files to share with the community and foster discussion for further improvements :)

The mod has been tested to a reasonable extent, at this point. The overall feel is that of uncertain but more dangerous engagements, as well as more challenging logistics/management of your armies.

HARDE

Harsher Attrition Realism and Decisive Engagements by Numahr
V beta 0.5
Download Link

If you use this mod, please provide feedback and suggestions!

Installation
- Back up files in your Settings folder
- Copy zipped Settings folder, replacing existing files

Additional scenario module for Hannibal -219 by rominet
Rominet has tweaked the Hannibal -219 scenario to adapt the scenario to the new rules and a wealth of other tweaks. I recommend his optional files for this scenario.
See his postpage 3 of this thread.

Change Log
0.1: Initial release
0.1b: Fix on number of rounds properly coded for postures
0.2: Long battles slightly more lethal for the defeated side and return to normal replacement rule (primus Pilus edition kept the modded rule)
0.2b: Inclusion of an interface fix by Bohémond to produce reports on all 8 battle rounds
0.3: Alternative replacement rule re-instated, rout is more dangerous, commanders’ statistics are more decisive and malus to besiegers is toned down.
0.4: Random factor in sieges increased.
0.5: Lethality of standard melee further decreased (50% Vanilla value instead of 70%) and Coefficient to losses in retreat tweaked down from 900 to 600 (Vanilla is 250).

Objective
Improve combat and logistics mechanics to give a harsher feeling of warfare

Overview of features
- Limits easy replacement of losses.
- Regular fight is slightly less lethal, but rout and pursuit may result in much higher casualties for the losing side, resulting in potentially steeper casualty imbalance between winner and loser, and, potentially, in total destruction of the loosing side.
- Determined attack and defense postures are more decisive but also more dangerous, while defensive defense postures are more “evasive”.
- Changes are significant but not extreme and limited to a few factors: it is more an evolution from Vanilla than a revolution, to avoid unintended imbalance.

In details

Logistics:
- Replacement of partial elements only takes place in a depot, using available extra supply and ammunition. Partial elements receive replenishments in proportion of extra supply and ammunition, and receive no replenishment if units in a given region still lack supply or ammunition.
Hint: Large armies with many affected elements need to be split up in several cities with high depot levels to recover quickly.
- Regions with Loyalty under 75% for your faction will have a supply penalty.
- More attrition for besieging armies.
- Sieges are less predictable with slightly more randomization (using dice 14 instead of dice 12).

Battles:
- Hit Coefficient for ranged attacks decreased from 4% to 3%;
- Hit Coefficient for melee attacks decreased from 0.5% to 0.25% (see Narwal’s in depth analysis of battle mechanics for more info on these metrics);
- Battles last 8 rounds a day instead of 6 to compensate for less lethal rounds;
- Commander bonus granted by the stack commander increased from 10% to 20% for each point of stat;
- Significant malus to besiegers in assaults against structures.

Retreat:
- You now need at least 5% Military Control to be able to retreat to a given province;
- Coefficient to losses in retreat applied when routed is increased from 250 to 600 – the most drastic change. Be prepared to see whole armies encircled and destroyed!  should happen sometimes but not too often, hopefully;
- Retreat damage increase per round after the first is increased from 15% to 35%.
- “Disrupter” units such as Elephants have their damage on retreating units x3 instead of x2

Offensive Postures:

- All-out attack gives you an advantage in combat efficiency that decreases over time and considerably decreases your commander’s retreat will – making the battle last longer and increasing the risk of uncontrolled rout (-70% on round 3);
- Offensive posture significantly reduces your commander retreat will – making the battle last longer and increasing the risk of uncontrolled rout (-30% on round 3);
- No change to Conservative Attack posture;
- No change to Feint Attack posture.

Defensive Postures:
- Defend at all costs gives you an advantage in combat efficiency over your enemy that decreases over time;
- No change to Standard defense posture;
- Defend & Retreat posture reduces losses on both sides by 20%;
- Retreat if engaged posture reduces losses on both sides by 40%.

All changes are easy to find by looking for Numahr in the two files, with a reminder of the vanilla value for reference.

Credit
RSR Mod by HanBarca for some of the tweaks
Bohémond for the interface fix that covers 8 rounds per day
Rominet for insightful feedback and for the updated Hannibal Scenarios

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6213
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:08 pm

Looks very interesting! :thumbsup:
Hope to have time to give it a try!

User avatar
rominet
Sergeant
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:22 pm

Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:37 pm

Hi numahr

i have already tested your mod and really, i like it.

More decisive battle (i have lost an entire army in one battle, even if it was already a bit depleted before battle) , very few attrition for troops doing nothing, more attrition when making siege.
And i like the fact that replacements are harder to have.
However, there is a trouble here.
I am playing Romans and the game reaches now March -215.
I was thinking that depots were enough to receive replacements and new elements but it doesn't work (nearly never).
In fact, it is working but only at Roma.
So, i must always retreat my forces to Rome in order to recomplete them.
It is even true for Cenomanii and Veneti forces in spite of the fact that Brixia and Patavium have a size 2 depot.
I have also built a size 4 depot at Ariminium because it is nearer to the front but my forces never got replacements or new elements here; i always must retreat them to Rome.

Is it normal or is there something wrong?

numahr
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:11 pm

Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:10 am

I am glad you like it :)

Note that "very few attrition for troops doing nothing" has nothing to do with my changes. Also you should have more casualties in assaults, but the mod does not increase attrition during siege. By making replacement less accessible, however, attrition is more a factor as you do not get a constant flow of fresh men instantly replacing fallen ones as you walk your army around. To replenish your army from "daily" small scale attrition, you now need to stop for a while in a logistical center (depot).

Which brings me to your issue. What you describe about getting no replacement outside of Roma's depot is not intended. But your "nearly never" hints at some other factors maybe affecting the availability of replacement. Would you care sharing a save file for me to investigate?

Which then leads me to the next issue. This is a question for the devs, really. Is there a way to limit units from getting replacements outside of the region of their respective culture? As in no Numid replacement outside of Africa?

TC271
Sergeant
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:58 pm

Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:27 am

Hi,

I also have being testing the mod.

I agree with Rominet that it appears impossible/very hard to replenish damaged elements outside of Rome - I currently have a Roman army in full supply sitting on a level 4 depot in Spain that doesnt get any replenishment at all (it does get replacment elements though!). What value did you change here Numar is their any room for adjustment as I think the current setting is too hard.

Also I am tempted to increase the retreat damage even moe drastically and perhaps increase the chance of a retreat/route happening in the first place - I am chasing a Pharsalus type result to a battle which I have never managed to get from this engine yet.

numahr
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:11 pm

Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:49 pm

On replacement

You can revert back to original replacement rule by going in GameLogic.opt and changing
rulRecoverHit = 1
into
rulRecoverHit = 2

You will still benefit from all other features, only replacement will be handled like before.

It seems like this value has some mystery to it... If it is bugged I will have to drop it.

---

On "Pharsalus type battles"

You want battles and routs to be even more decisive? Be careful, because many engagements in Roman wars were in fact inconclusive... Just an example, Lucullus waged war against Mithridates for 7 years with many such inconclusive engagements... So because of the way the engine works a fine balance must be found or else all battles will turn into exaggerated slaughters. Even Cannae had many survivors on the Roman side who fought later with Scipion and became the backbone of his army for the war in Africa.

Now if you want to experiment by yourself on these values, open GameRules.opt

a. Consequence of a rout:
cbtRoutCoeffDmg =
In my first internal version I put 900 but then I got the defeated side annihilated too often.

b. Probability of a rout happening:
You can prevent retreat from being successful in the posture modifiers by reducing roeRetreatChance (many values as each posture has a value for each round). Unsuccessful retreats should increase the occurrences of uncontrolled routs.

c. Consequence of a retreat
cbtRetreatCoeffChangeRnd =
Increase this one, it should make long-fought battles even deadlier during the retreat phase.

But again, don't be too heavy-handed on these values or else you'll replace an extreme by another...

Now my formula being just one among infinite possibilities, don't hesitate to let us know here about your "ideal" formula... :)

User avatar
rominet
Sergeant
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:22 pm

Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:55 pm

Hi

i am going on with this modded game (october -214) and i can be more precise now.

First things i have to say is that i have played 3 times the vanilla -219 campaign (at least for 4 or 5 years of the game) so i have good statitics and i can see the differences.
Each time, i played Romans against a rather hard AI and with most realistic attrition option.


I begin with ATTRITION.

First, i speak about the attrition the troops doing nothing undergo, so garrison or for example, Africans troops under roman control during the fisrt years of the game.
In vanilla, there is a clear attrition on these troops which cost quite a bit if you don't want to see your troops totaly depleted after 3 or 4 years.
In your mod, nearly nothing!!!
After 4 years of game, i have as much attrition effect in your mod as in 2 month of vanilla game. Sorry, it is a fact and for me, it is a good point.

Second point, the attrition for units making siege.
There is now a clear attrition, much more than in vanilla, not too high, not too low.

You said you didn't change anything about attrition but the changes in game are just huges and in the good direction.
So, please, don't touch anything on attrition, IMHO, it is just perfect. :coeurs:


Now, concerning REPLACEMENT.

I must change a bit what i have previously said.

Keep in mind there are 2 kinds of replacements: "normal" replacement (F2) and replacement of destroyed elements in units.

Concerning "normal" replacements, the situation has changed but i don't know exactly why.
I have now noticed that replacements can be received not only in Roma but also in town with a size 4 depot (I have noticed it has happened at least once in a town with size 3 depot).
I have such a depot at Ariminium and Emporiae and it works but your troops must absolutely be immobile during the month!!!!!! This point is capital.
And if it is possible, i prefer to set my force in passive attitude.
But it doesn't seem compulsary; my troops at Emporiae are in defensive attitude and they receive replacements.

At contrary, i have a size 2 depot at Brixia, Patavium and Felsina and I DON'T SEE (i said "i dont see") any replacements here.

Here, my "i don't see" is clearly equivalent to my "nearly never" of my precious post.
That because i have noticed that, when a garrison has suffered losses during a failed siege (for example), if i buy replacements for it, replacements take a long time to recomplete the units but they do.
So, it is possible it makes the same thing for others troops but with a so small rate that i don't see anything in only 1 turn.

I am wondering if replacement rate is something which depend on depot's size, or regions's development or loyalty, etc.


Concerning now the replacement of destroyed elements, it is about the same situation as before but with a big difference: units can receive new element even if they move and even in size 2 depot.
For example, i had an army with more than 4 units largely depleted which was moving from Patavium to Felsina in passive attitude.
During the trip, this army received 4 new elements in 4 different unit (1 per unit) but they received no "normal" replacements.
On the other hand, some turns later, after a big battle, one of my armies was resting at Felsina (size 2 depot) but received no replacements at all during 2 turns.
I have been forced to retreat it to Ariminium to receive replacements (of the 2 kind).

So, the least i can say is, the replacement system remains quite dark for me but the situation is better than before.




Concerning BATTLE, i can say you are on the good way even if i think as TC271 that they should perhaps be even more decisives (ok for the inconclusive historic antic battles).

However, nothing is perfect and i have 1 trouble.

This is illustrated by a screen i can't publish because i haven't posted enough on this forum.

In 20% of the cases, battles are interrupted by an error message i never saw before in vanilla game.

This message ask me if i want send report to Ageod.

If i click yes (oui), the game crashes!!

If i click no (non), the game goes on but the error windows appears again and again and i must click "no" many times (30, 50, 80) until the battle ends. It is a bit paintful.




I concluded with the STORMS, especially summer storms (because i usually but not always let my fleets sleeping during winter).

In vanilla, the worst that can happen is a fleet with an army crossing 2 regions of storms.
Sometimes, nothing happens; some other times, half of the fleet and the army disappear.

But with your mod, it is a disaster!!
Twice, one of my fleet with army crossed 2 regions of summer storms and they were both time totaly wiped out, an atomic bomb, nothing survived!!!!
I already find the storms in AJE quite excessives but now!!!

Perhaps i had very bad dices, i don't know but i prefer to tell it to you.



I hope this could help you to imptove your mod, i really enjoy it!!!!!! :thumbsup:

PS: sorry for long post and bad English.

TC271
Sergeant
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:58 pm

Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:57 pm

There does seem to be an issue with replenishing depleted elements and as we have only two possible values it seems we may need AGEOD to help with this. For the moment I have gone back to normal replacements as cycling stacks back to Rome is proving too tedious.

I have setup a save with Caesar about to confront a Pompey with about 50,000 man on each side. I will try this engagement with a scenerio with a variety of settings and see what happens.

My understanding of ancient battles is that they were generally only fought when both sides accepted battle - so yes when one side is in a defensive stance I would expect it to be difficult to force a decisive engagement but when both sides risked battle (both stacks in offensive mode?) then in general a decisive battle should take place.

numahr
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:11 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:08 am

Thanks so much for the very detailed and constructive feedback guys!! Very much appreciated.

Some comments:
- So the replacement rule seems to be interesting but obscure, so it is reserved for an optional version, the "primus pilus" edition. Standard edition of the mod has the normal vanilla replacement rule.
- OK I made defeat slightly more lethal for the retreating side, but not in general, just based on two factors: 1. length of the battle (+35% damage per battle turn instead of +25%) and 2. presence of "disrupters" (elephants...) on the winning side (damage x3 instead of x2 during a pursuit)
- If you come up with an alternative version for the values, let me know and I can publish it in the Original Post for easy reference and facilitated discussion
- I am at a loss at understanding the changed attrition in structures and while besieging... probably the side effect of another change, maybe sieExtraModifier?
- Concerning the bug occurring during battles, did you get it with 0.1b or 0.1? Were those long battles where you reached the end of the 1st day? I could not reproduce it but it might be related with the 8 rounds. Does anyone experience the theoretical 8 rounds per day? I never did in my tests.
- I don't think the deadlier storms are because of the mod, any additional feedback on this appreciated.

Now releasing beta 0.2 and beta 0.2 Primus Pilus edition in the OP...

User avatar
rominet
Sergeant
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:22 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:25 am

Thanks numahr for your work.

So, i will continue to test on "beta 0.2 Primus pilus ed"; i suppose of course my save is compatible with!!?

About battle's bug, i will pay attention to a possible relationships between it and the lengh of battle.
I was playing with your beta 0.1 mod.

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13442
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:05 am

All this work looks quite interesting.
Image

numahr
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:11 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:50 pm

Merci Philippe! I may have a couple of dev-exclusive questions at some point ;)

rominet: yes it should be save game compatible. If you used 0.1 then I strongly suspect your bug being caused by the fact that I defined 8 rounds per day but 0.1 had no posture values for rounds 7 and 8. I fixed this mistake in 0.1b

A related question is:
- do you see rounds 7 and 8 in battle reports? (I did not)
- if they do not show, is it just an interface thing (they take place but the report is designed to show only 6 rounds)?

But more importantly, if you or anyone have time, testing the primus pilus edition and better understanding its alternative replacement rule is the most interesting, I would say... I really wonder if the odd behavior is somehow related to regions.

User avatar
rominet
Sergeant
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:22 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:06 pm

numahr wrote:rominet: yes it should be save game compatible. If you used 0.1 then I strongly suspect your bug being caused by the fact that I defined 8 rounds per day but 0.1 had no posture values for rounds 7 and 8. I fixed this mistake in 0.1b

A related question is:
- do you see rounds 7 and 8 in battle reports? (I did not)
- if they do not show, is it just an interface thing (they take place but the report is designed to show only 6 rounds)?


Nice, i will continue the game on 0.2 version.

Concerning your question, on 0.1 version, i didn't pay attention of the number of rounds for battle.
I will take care of that now. Your suggestion about the bug makes sense.

User avatar
Bohémond
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:47 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:53 pm

rominet wrote:Nice, i will continue the game on 0.2 version.

Concerning your question, on 0.1 version, i didn't pay attention of the number of rounds for battle.
I will take care of that now. Your suggestion about the bug makes sense.


If needed, I can try to add round 7 and 8 to Battle Log.

Let me know

Regards
Marco, perché vai così forte in salita?» «Per abbreviare la mia agonia.

numahr
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:11 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:09 pm

Waouu thanks a lot for support Bohémond! Very much appreciated.

I'd like to experiment yet a bit more before coming to the dev team with some questions... I'll then let you know. In that particular case, I am not even sure we should keep the 8 rounds per day.

To discuss further this: the 8 rounds per day bring in 2 things:

- it balances out the reduced casualty rate per round to keep roughly the same quantity of casualties per day. Not sure if this justifies as the reason to reduce kill rate to begin with is that I want more casualties during (potential) routs or at least retreat rather than during the main combat phase. Casualties seem to have been rather limited during the "main melee phase" when I read accounts of classical warfare, with most casualties scored during the conclusion (pursuit or envelopment).

- it increases the max number of turns in a battle (since a new day = a new battle), thus increasing the impact of the factor of +x% increase of retreat casualties per round.

All is inter-related, which makes things interesting :)

User avatar
rominet
Sergeant
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:22 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:27 pm

As soon as i can post a screen (this is my 5th post:siffle :) , we'll can see that there is a probably a Relationship between the battle bug and the 7th or 8th round.

User avatar
rominet
Sergeant
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:22 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:33 pm

Ok, let's have a look.

This is the window's bug and i didn't noticed it before but in the text below, it is clear that there is at least a 7th round.

Image

I recall this was with the 0.1 version of the mod.


I am at this moment testing the version 0.2 and until now, i didn't have any battle bug and i didn't see any battle with more than 6 rounds.

User avatar
Bohémond
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:47 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:09 pm

I will need the logs (AJE/Logs) to able to investigate.

In the meanwhile, you can try these files. They should allow you to play and display 8 rounds per battle


GUIBattleLog.zip
(5.08 KiB) Downloaded 67 times


Unzip, copy and paste in AJE/FrontEnd

GUIBattleLog.zip
(5.08 KiB) Downloaded 67 times


Unzip,. copy and paste in Alea Jacta Est\AJE\Graphics\FrontEnd\BattleReport


Let me know

Regards
Attachments
BattleReport.zip
(23.98 KiB) Downloaded 66 times
Marco, perché vai così forte in salita?» «Per abbreviare la mia agonia.

numahr
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:11 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:37 pm

Thanks a lot for support Bohémond.

New version uploaded with the interface fix for 8 battle rounds a day. If you see a rout taking place at the end of the battle day, it should have dramatic consequences...

(save game compatible)

User avatar
rominet
Sergeant
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:22 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:42 pm

numahr wrote:Thanks a lot for support Bohémond.

New version uploaded with the interface fix for 8 battle rounds a day. If you see a rout taking place at the end of the battle day, it should have dramatic consequences...

(save game compatible)


Sorry if my question is stupid:
is your new version with 8 rounds for battle available?

numahr
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:11 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:08 pm

See Original Post for newest version with Bohémond's custom interface.

@ Bohémond: there is a small bug where rounds 7 and 8 always have their buttons visible in the battle report, even when they did not actually take place...

User avatar
Bohémond
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:47 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:46 pm

numahr wrote:See Original Post for newest version with Bohémond's custom interface.

@ Bohémond: there is a small bug where rounds 7 and 8 always have their buttons visible in the battle report, even when they did not actually take place...


Could you post a srceenshot ?

Regards
Marco, perché vai così forte in salita?» «Per abbreviare la mia agonia.

numahr
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:11 pm

Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:20 pm

Bohémond, here you can see the graphic glitch I was mentioning:
(this is the tutorial battle and obviously lasted 2 rounds only, yet buttons for rounds 7 and 8 appear)

Image

User avatar
Bohémond
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:47 pm

Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:34 am

numahr wrote:Bohémond, here you can see the graphic glitch I was mentioning:
(this is the tutorial battle and obviously lasted 2 rounds only, yet buttons for rounds 7 and 8 appear)

Image


Do you mod the ROE section in userinterface.opt ?

If not you must add 2 values for each line. Without these value nothing will happen in round 7 and 8.

Credits ; Round 6 and 7 Graphics by my friend Picaron. I only mod the .dfm file.

Regards
Marco, perché vai così forte in salita?» «Per abbreviare la mia agonia.

User avatar
Lynxyonok
General
Posts: 564
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:16 pm

Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:39 am

numahr wrote:But more importantly, if you or anyone have time, testing the primus pilus edition and better understanding its alternative replacement rule is the most interesting, I would say... I really wonder if the odd behavior is somehow related to regions.


http://ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?37675-BOR-1-04c-HARDE-2-Primus-Pilus-The-Eternal-Empire :)

User avatar
rominet
Sergeant
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:22 pm

Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:49 am

Concerning the beta 0.2 PP, i will make a bigger post latter but i have already noticed something strange:
in spite of many sieges all around the map, there are no more breachs (even with 5 Legions/Alae:blink :) (in fact nearly never) and troops besieged troops nearly never suffer losses.
Moreover, it seems very difficult for Legions to build balista; sometimes, 1; 2 is a maximum and very rare.

I wonder if it is not a consequence of: "Significant malus to besiegers in assaults against structures".


I take the opportunity of this message to report a bug of vanilla game (i think):
the small Massalian general Timoukos (3-1-1) is infinitely generated at Massalia (nearly each turn i think).
I have now plenty of Timoukos in my army!! I don't think it is normal.

numahr
Sergeant
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:11 pm

Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:30 am

OK I see what happens.

The sieExtraModifier is applied to what the Manual calls Siege Resolution Value, not to assault resulting from storming a structure. In that case -2 is a very steep figure. I will bring it to -1.

However we could reduce supply to cities sieged by land and supplied by port only (-50%?).

Unfortunately I don't see a value to increase the combat effect of fortifications, which was the intended effect of that change.

User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4564
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:11 pm

rominet wrote:Concerning the beta 0.2 PP, i will make a bigger post latter but i have already noticed something strange:
in spite of many sieges all around the map, there are no more breachs (even with 5 Legions/Alae:blink :) (in fact nearly never) and troops besieged troops nearly never suffer losses.
Moreover, it seems very difficult for Legions to build balista; sometimes, 1; 2 is a maximum and very rafe

I wonder if it is not a consequence of: "Significant malus to besiegers in assaults against structures".


I take the opportunity of this message to report a bug of vanilla game (i think):
the small Massalian general Timoukos (3-1-1) is infinitely generated at Massalia (nearly each turn i think).
I have now plenty of Timoukos in my army!! I don't think it is normal.


Hi

Re the Timoukos bug, which Scenario is it ?

Thanks
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
rominet
Sergeant
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:22 pm

Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:18 pm

Franciscus wrote:Hi

Re the Timoukos bug, which Scenario is it ?

Thanks


-219

User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4564
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:41 pm

Can you post a save game, please, and the Scripts folder ?

Thanks
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Return to “AJE Mods”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests