RS2.6\RSIII questions & answers

[Saul Tyre]

Thanks, this is working. However I'm still open to any more ideas

Two more things that I use that may help you, 1)go to video options in the start menu and change x32 to x16 of your resolution choice, Windows only uses 24 colours and x32 is overkill 2)try large address aware software, rtw can only use 2gb ram and this gives you up to 4gb, here is the link, scroll down the page to attached files, download the first zip, look at the first diagram only at the top of the page for how to use. https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...-aware.112556/

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Well i am playing on 0 turn recruitment. .................

Well, this is why you face endless stacks - it's the choice that you wanted. The plague just has to be managed - spreading it is not a great plan. Healers help.

I've repeatedly said - 0turn is really an aberration. But if you want endless battles, then that's the way. It is not how the game (let alone the Mod) was designed.

[Saul Tyre]

I've repeatedly said - 0turn is really an aberration. But if you want endless battles, then that's the way. It is not how the game (let alone the Mod) was designed.

The same aberration that is the hidden resource of building the Palace of Praetor Vacarius or Royal Palace in Akragas to trigger the Marian reforms, or 24000 population in any Romani city which happens for the AI long before the historical event if you are playing as a non Romani Faction.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

The same aberration that is the hidden resource of building the Palace of Praetor Vacarius or Royal Palace in Akragas to trigger the Marian reforms, or 24000 population in any Romani city which happens for the AI long before the historical event if you are playing as a non Romani Faction.

No, not in the slightest - that's an utterly ridiculous comment.

[BHL 20]

Well, this is why you face endless stacks - it's the choice that you wanted. The plague just has to be managed - spreading it is not a great plan. Healers help.

I've repeatedly said - 0turn is really an aberration. But if you want endless battles, then that's the way. It is not how the game (let alone the Mod) was designed.

If you were a RSII tester, surely you know the mod was originally designed for 0-turn. Even now the 1-turn campaigns aren't yet properly balanced, and the only faction with a modfoldered 1-turn campaign is Rome. I don't think it's valid to call 0-turn an aberration. It simply isn't everyone's cup of tea.

[Saul Tyre]

No, not in the slightest - that's an utterly ridiculous comment.

Why?...what gives you the right to say that to me? is your's the only opinion that's correct? rather supercilious of you laddie.

[20ninescene]

Can a moderator delete my/this post please? Thanks in advance.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Why?...what gives you the right to say that to me? is your's the only opinion that's correct? rather supercilious of you laddie.

I am claiming no rights - I am merely commenting on the game's underlying and originally planned design. Vanilla RTW, BI & Alex all have 1 and 2-turn (I don't recall any 3-turn units just now, but there may be) recruitment systems and single-unit per turn limitations. That is how the game is designed. That is just fact.

The additional fact that the building time can be changed to '0' and then also enable multi-unit building is simply a potentially useful 'difference/aberration' (the words and others can be used interchangeably) that can enable game testing - it certainly isn't part of the game design.

RS, however, wanted (in it's 0turn variants) to generate lots and lots of tactical battlefield battles - loads and loads of them. Balance is not evident in any of the scenarios produced.

If, however, you want a game that will semi-realistically simulate the expansion of the Roman Empire from the 2nd Punic War onwards to around the time of Trajan - then RS2.6 on standard Rome 1turn can come close to enabling that; within the basic framework, however, of 'Total War' (which is why, indeed RTW2's diplomatic element is somewhat better) and the limitations that follow. Most importantly, giving you all the flavour of really very good and incredibly convenient figure-based table top battles of the 50s to 90's.

But, if you want more tactical battles and less strategy campaign - choose 0turn by all means. Just don't complain about that choice.

Not 'my opinion' - that's just how it is - so I'll say so.

[Saul Tyre]

I am claiming no rights - I am merely commenting on the game's underlying and originally planned design. Vanilla RTW, BI & Alex all have 1 and 2-turn (I don't recall any 3-turn units just now, but there may be) recruitment systems and single-unit per turn limitations. That is how the game is designed. That is just fact.

The additional fact that the building time can be changed to '0' and then also enable multi-unit building is simply a potentially useful 'difference/aberration' (the words and others can be used interchangeably) that can enable game testing - it certainly isn't part of the game design.

RS, however, wanted (in it's 0turn variants) to generate lots and lots of tactical battlefield battles - loads and loads of them. Balance is not evident in any of the scenarios produced.

If, however, you want a game that will semi-realistically simulate the expansion of the Roman Empire from the 2nd Punic War onwards to around the time of Trajan - then RS2.6 on standard Rome 1turn can come close to enabling that; within the basic framework, however, of 'Total War' (which is why, indeed RTW2's diplomatic element is somewhat better) and the limitations that follow. Most importantly, giving you all the flavour of really very good and incredibly convenient figure-based table top battles of the 50s to 90's.

But, if you want more tactical battles and less strategy campaign - choose 0turn by all means. Just don't complain about that choice.

Not 'my opinion' - that's just how it is - so I'll say so.

I think you may have responded to the wrong comment, mine was a tongue-in-cheek comment aimed at the early trigger for the Marian Reforms not being historically correct, and being a possible game spoiler, ditto with the ability to recruit armies so quickly as in the 0-turn option which you called an aberration, I had not disagreed with nor questioned what you had to say. Your reply on the other hand was rude and I was asking why you felt the need to be so ignorant, or maybe you were just having a bad day and made my comment "sound" how you wanted it to rather than what was intended.

[Eshawingchun]

Played RS2 a long time ago, Just started up RS3 for the first time today, Great Mod!, is it just my imagination tho or do the ranged units, Archers and peltasts have increased missile range? If so is there anyway to change this? Not a big problem , I can get used to it but yeah ....

[tone]

Ranges were increased by whoever redid some of the stats
You can change these in the EDU file (export_descr_units.txt) in the /data folder of whichever campaign's subfolder for each of the archer units e.g. this has been increased to 230 range in RS3

type             roman cretan archerdictionary       roman_cretan_archer
category         infantry
class            missile
voice_type       Light_1
soldier          cretan_archer, 30, 0, 0.846
officer          roman_centurion
officer          roman_signifier
attributes       sea_faring,  hide_forest,  can_sap,  very_hardy
formation        1.6, 2, 3.2, 4, 3,  square
stat_health      1, 7
stat_pri         16, 4, pointed_stick2, 160, 30, missile, siege, piercing, none, 25, 1
stat_pri_attr    no
stat_sec         8, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, piercing, sword, 25, 0.477
stat_sec_attr    no
stat_pri_armour  15, 7, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour  0, 1, flesh
stat_heat        2
stat_ground      1, 0, -1, 0
stat_mental      6, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay  0
stat_food        60, 300
stat_cost        0, 372, 150, 19, 27, 47
ownership        romans_brutii, thrace

[MemphisRex]

Hello all,


Been a tad bit far away from gaming in the last 2/3 years. I am back for some time though. GEMFX has made a significant difference in my TW: R2 and TW:A campaign. Since they launched a stand alone version of it, is it possible that I can use it with RS III? Has anyone tried it yet?

Any help would be appreciated. I am going to try it out tonight, once I am home, but I just wanted to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[z3n]

Does anyone know what happened to dvk? I'm a bit concerned.

[tone]

Me too. Haven't heard from him recently

[dvk901]

I'm sorry for my absence....I've just had a boatload of real life issues going on, and it's been hard for me to even think about this much. Problem is if I allow myself to get immersed in this, it's hard for me to get out. LOL Anyway, I haven't been entirely inactive in at least the sense that I have been methodically going through cities, playing battles in them in a real campaign, and fixing the issues that people have complained about. I've fixed the issues of units getting deployed 'under' buildings in the Greek and\or eastern versions of the hillfort cities. I completely removed the 'inner fortresses' from both Syracuse and Sparta because they cause too many issues that I just can't fix. And I've moved a few buildings here and there that were blocking roads or were inside other buildings.

And, in spite of my efforts to fix issues with 'equipment' being used with armies in the field, the game just won't allow any 'moddable' solution to the problem of severe lag on the battlefield when a reinforcing army contains any kind of equipment. If you are in an area on the map where there are few trees, there isn't a problem. But in any forest-heavy area, it's best to leave a reinforcing army in your own control (uncheck the box allowing the AI to control the army). Or, simply reinforce with 'equipment-less' armies.

I am starting to compile Patch 3.2, so hopefully there will be an update soon.

[Sefe]

Hi everyone,
I would like to make the cities in Roma Surrectum 2.6 look like the cities in Roma Surrectum 3, on battle map. So, which files should I copy from RS3 to RS2.6?
I only want this because I cannot play RS3 on my win10 laptop but I love it's new cities. Thanks in advance

[romavictoria]

The same aberration that is the hidden resource of building the Palace of Praetor Vacarius or Royal Palace in Akragas to trigger the Marian reforms, or 24000 population in any Romani city which happens for the AI long before the historical event if you are playing as a non Romani Faction.

Thats not entirely true!

You can actually plan (which i do all the time) to let it happen around 140-100BC so it roughly within the timespan.
Not excactly but more realisticly close.

Btw the Legionaries are extremely costly so i think its even better to wait a coupled of decades until
you have built up a reasonable good infra-structure.

/Apologies Roma...

[romavictoria]

If you were a RSII tester, surely you know the mod was originally designed for 0-turn. Even now the 1-turn campaigns aren't yet properly balanced, and the only faction with a modfoldered 1-turn campaign is Rome. I don't think it's valid to call 0-turn an aberration. It simply isn't everyone's cup of tea.

RS 3 with 0-turn recruitment is the whole reason i writing on this excellent forum!

That alone (0-turn) is very very close how the Roman Republic must have felt in the early days.
Because they was fighting for the very soul of the Roman way...(invading Carthago Nova, fooling the Macedonians,
taking som slaves from the Seleucids from time to time etc)...
and i thinks it absolutely fine to match my legionaries with the barbaric hordes, Macedonian phalangites, and the Carthaginian soldiers...
0-turn...yes i say...and a must wouldnt play without it...

[ferike_2007]

The same aberration that is the hidden resource of building the Palace of Praetor Vacarius or Royal Palace in Akragas to trigger the Marian reforms, or 24000 population in any Romani city which happens for the AI long before the historical event if you are playing as a non Romani Faction.

Thats not entirely true!

You can actually plan (which i do all the time) to let it happen around 140-100BC so it roughly within the timespan.
Not excactly but more realisticly close.

Btw the Legionaries are extremely costly so i think its even better to wait a coupled of decades until
you have built up a reasonable good infra-structure.

Well, romavictoria has right. The (Roman) player can easily controll the population growth in Akragas for example; actually we have a lot of "tools": raising very high taxes to prevent premature pop growth, or even causing negative pop growth ( combined with a larger garrison, to prevent revolts ), or there is a pop controll building, etcetera, so in a Roman campaign controlling the Marian reform is not a big deal. On the other hand, in a non Roman campaign there are too many cities with "italy" resource which triggered the reforms, so their number must be restricted/limited to one or two city with low pop growth, or - better - even handled somehow under player's controll... I know, lack of team/testers/and so on...

IMHO one of the major aspect should be adjusted in RS 3.2 is - for Roman-players - the structure of rebel legions during the Caesarian civil war. As far as I remember, I mentioned this issue before and the response was, in the development phase lot of developers/testers argued for the N&N legions... but I think there is not too late to do this. To be honest, I tried to do it myself several times, but failed.

[Alavaria]

in a Roman campaign controlling the Marian reform is not a big deal. On the other hand, in a non Roman campaign there are too many cities with "italy" resource which triggered the reforms, so their number must be restricted/limited to one or two city with low pop growth, or - better - even handled somehow under player's controll...

Throttling the Rome AI so it historically (time-wise) reforms, followed by an immediate death =P