Detailed reactions to Vae Victus

[FangThang]

>>>I don't think of it as just "casualty reports", but also the enemy simply giving up in the face of overwhelming force.

Absolutely. I don't mind an Army being reduced to 0 as an effective fighting force, there are examples of that historically.

The victor having almost no casualties reveals the problem. You would have more than 10 casulaties out of 18000 marching an Army ten miles, let alone in a battle No force mix, leader data etc. could or should explain such disparity.

Main point is that the battle resolution code is very suspect and needs to be looked at. What's the best way to help Paradox fix it? Post battle results and conditions in a seperate thread maybe? Send savegames?

Well those casualtie from marching the army would be expressed in terms of atrition not battle losses. As far as real life examples of increadibly lopsided battles see the Battle of Lake Trasimene. 50k Carthgenians vrs 40k Romans. The romans losses were 30k dead and 10k captured. The Carthgenians lost 1,500.

 

[Cheexsta]

Aaaaaand even more interesting little tidbits:

1. Mercenaries no longer gain reinforcements (as far as I could tell). There goes my old method of retaining manpower if I have heaps of money It really just means you have to be more careful about when to use mercs and when to use regulars.

2. Capturing territory from cultures other than your own reduces their Citizens to Slaves (or Freedmen, I haven't paid that much attention). It's because of this that Epirus is giving me ~26 gold per year, almost double what Rome is giving me! Work those slaves, boys I can't wait to capture Alexandria. On the negative side, though, it means you get fewer Citizens for teching, so it really forces large, expansive empires to be more careful.

 

[Kevianus]

The Carthgenians lost 1,500.

But the point is I am losing only *10 or 20* casualties in my 18000+ army when they win against well-balanced (infantry/archers/cav)armies of of 8000 to 16000.

I have no problem with small victor casualties e.g. to cite your example of 1500.

I have no problem with the annihilation of a defeated army (see discussion above).

I do have a problem with losing just 10 or 20 men in a major battle. No leader or tech or force mix factor should lead to that outcome.

There is clearly an issue with the combat resolution.

 

[Scipio Aemilius]

There is clearly an issue with the combat resolution.

That's what I strongly dislkie about Vae Victis: the combat resolution seems bugged. I've had two opposite kind of results: Smashing a 15k army down with 30k men (and very few losses) as well as seing a 20k army nearly destroyed by a 5k ennemy, that was running from its previous defeat. It just doesn't feel right.

But I must say I do love all the rest (except maybe the "heir fatal disease"). If they could fix these, I'd be happy.

 

[Pax25]

Thoughts After First Single Player Game

Played my first game as Rome on normal. I crushed Magna Grecia and was on my way to defeating Carthage, but I didn't pay attention to the fact that my top general was becoming completely disloyal. I actually was about to hit the bribe button when he marched on Rome with 31 units. I was unable to defeat him in a long civil war. Now while a lot of people would complain that this is a bug or silly, I took it as a challenge and am excited to play another game.

So far my only disappointment is that there still is no flag across the top when you can support a new colony. You still have to constantly check all the barbarian provinces.

 

[Nyrael]

Why would anyone call that a bug? That is quite realistic.

 

[Bertouch]

Why would anyone call that a bug? That is quite realistic.

He's not asking for realism, and he isn't calling it a bug. He's stating that's his preference, and it's lacking in the game. Which fits in with this thread.

 

[darktalon]

He's not asking for realism, and he isn't calling it a bug. He's stating that's his preference, and it's lacking in the game. Which fits in with this thread.

I think he was talking about the "general revolts and marches on Rome" thing, which isn't a bug but makes things interesting.

 

[Nyrael]

He's not asking for realism, and he isn't calling it a bug. He's stating that's his preference, and it's lacking in the game. Which fits in with this thread.

I am just pointing out that there is no reason to mention the bug part.

 

[Bertouch]

I am just pointing out that there is no reason to mention the bug part.

But he didn't call it a bug, Nyrael. He wrote:

Now while a lot of people would complain that this is a bug or silly, I took it as a challenge and am excited to play another game.

So he was actually agreeing with you.

 

[lucaluca]

Nice improvements

This is my experience with my game as Seleucid Empire 474 AVC...

Seleucid empire starts at war with Egypt, but soon after Armenia also doWed... I tried to fight off Egypt but they simply have too much manpower while I am constantly at 0, mercenaries do not reinforce anymore so they are useful only for a few battles. I had to cede Damascus and Phoenicia to Egypt and was able to get one province from Armenia. After a few years i didn't realize that when there is a risk of civil war it will ACTUALLY happen :rofl: So there was a big civil war about the heir, pretty much half of the state rebelled. It lasted many years during which Egypt attacked again and I had to cede Perga (they had the mission "Conquer the Coast of Asia Minor"). I managed to win the civil war thanks to barbarians who conquered several provinces of the rebels and created their own state in Parthia. After some peace and rebuilding i menaged to conquer Lycia from Egypt who was being finished off by Egyptian rebels. These rebels were more friendly to me and eventually I got in an alliance with them after they seized the power. I used this time to conquer Armenia, Parthia, Pergamon, Iberia. I also menaged to conquer Judea that rebelled from Egypt (why does the AI call allies to arms to fight a 1 province state is beyond me :wacko: ). Then Egypt went to war against Carthage and called me again, I stabbed them in the back and declared war, they were at war with a lot of countries still managed to fight me off and I got only Damascus, but i was so proud of having won my first naval battle against the egyptian fleet (long battle it was uncertain until the end so much drama :rofl: ) . Meanwhile Rome is monstrous... conquered parts of Greece and Macedonia, all of Italy, Sicily and most of Africa... So my original plan to defeat Egypt is being changed with leaving a strong Egypt to buffer Rome and in the meantime conquer Pontus, hoping Rome won't ally Egypt (they do not see Egypt as a threat but they do with me).

So all in all very good but still after the initial struggles is rather easy to understand the dynamics of the court and avoid civil wars, especially because resigning people from office does not have any side effect, and because it's rather easy to keep all those "become basileus" people out of power. I think that ambition should be hidden, or characters may gain it after holding offices... this would make things much spicier.

 

[Scipio Aemilius]

In my current game as Egypt, I had a civil war simply by making a disloyal cabinet member resigning!! And I also had a "general" start a civil war (but he was NOT one of my generals!! And the army that rebelled from me did NOT exist before! ).

So far, after a longer experience with the game, I must say I really really enjoy it. The only drawback is that I feel constantly pressed by the missions. Ever since the beginning of the game, I've never reached my max manpower, since I'm more or less constantly at war all around the world!

 

[lucaluca]

In my current game as Egypt, I had a civil war simply by making a disloyal cabinet member resigning!! And I also had a "general" start a civil war (but he was NOT one of my generals!! And the army that rebelled from me did NOT exist before! ).

So far, after a longer experience with the game, I must say I really really enjoy it. The only drawback is that I feel constantly pressed by the missions. Ever since the beginning of the game, I've never reached my max manpower, since I'm more or less constantly at war all around the world!

Really? Maybe he had high popularity/wealth, I'm not sure. I never had any problem resigning people, once I had to resign pretty much the whole court all at once because they didn't want to accept the heir apparent with his 0-1-0 stats (I'm playing unmodded so all the heirs die one after the other).
As for the missions, why do you feel hard pressed by them? They usually have just little penalties if you don't fulfill them (usually a loss in popularity or -1 stability).

 

[unmerged(71040)]

This is when I really began to like VV.

Even after his term was long over, Barbula was too influential in the senate, so my new consul (the rival he wants dead) ordered his arrest. He escaped to the court of Alexandria, pulled some strings, and suddenly the former leader of the Roman Populist faction was Pharaoh of Egypt!

 

[Nikolai]

That is totally awesome.

 

[SirGrotius]

that is cool!

 

[Javaslinger]

Has anyone actually posted a 'detailed' reaction in this thread? It seems much more like stream of consciousness reactions and little snippets of reactions followed by reactionary comments....

I'm looking forward to a detailed review type post...

Thanks,

 

[Prydefalcn]

Asking for a truely detailed reaction within the first week or release is somewhat counterintuitive

 

[Enewald]

Wowz, pharaoh is better than consul!

 

[Bertouch]

Asking for a truely detailed reaction within the first week or release is somewhat counterintuitive

Responding in this fashion without reading the truly detailed reactions you can find in this thread is perhaps a bit silly. After all, the responses aren't to Rome, but to an add-on that was considered so unimportant by Paradox they didn't even dignify it with a few pages of text summary in the product. And some people were playing it for 6-12 hours a day right from the start. Feel free to check out their comments and judge for yourself. Better that, than to judge a priori.