Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I guess sudden casualties might be less common but still probably enough there to make battles play out okay.
I've kept the slightly reduced impact of rear attacks meaning units can hold for a short while when assaulting walls (they always think they are being flanked here). Sieges seem to play out okay now.
Increased impact of friendlies routing to increase chance of chain routs as originally intended
Increased impact of casualties suffered over a short period of time on morale - this should mean that a rear charge will still in most cases causes a unit to rout.
A lot of other minor tweaking with morale to get the balance right.
Battles seem to be playing out great now
During testing with AI battles I have seen one side been mostly routed, then rally and rout the other side to win the battle show casing how quickly it can swing.
in 2 weeks i have more time again and will look into it as well
Anything else is really dependent on the AI growing a brain and learning how to use stuff like phalanxes properly and that doesn't seem all that likely to me.