The 124 "rules" needs to die!

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

This is a thread that's should've been made a long time ago.

But I'm making this thread because of how ridiculously unbalanced the whole idea of the 124 "rules" for sieges in the MP of Rome 2 and to explain why it's so bad and why people should stop using it, or at least not ALWAYS use them.

You see, I've played Rome 2 off and on since it was released, so I know the MP battles pretty darn well.

For those who don't know, 124 means 1 artillery, 2 pikes, and 4 missile units. And I've come to understand that it's not the entirety of the 124 that's the problem, it's mainly just the limiting the artillery in such a way.

For you see, I've also come to fully understand that the 124 rules weren't made because the artillery was super OP or anything, but rather to all bug try to rig siege battles in the defender's favor by hamstringing the attackers. And I can say this because like I said, I've played Rome 2 a lot since it was released, and I know that the rules for sieges weren't ALWAYS 124.

But I'm going to explain how and why the whole 124 rules are obviously meant to limit what attackers can do and all but fully rigging the game, mainly by listing the various advantages either side can have in siege battles.


Defenders
They can freaking SEE the attackers during the deployment phase.
They get free deployable defenses and OP wall artillery.
They barely have less money than the attackers, having like 14,400 gold to the attackers' 16,000 gold on ultra funds.
A good number of the maps have nearly unbreakable citadels which defenders often camp.

Attackers
They have siege equipment like towers and such which can be really helpful, but can only ever be used on the outer walls of a city.


As you can see, the defenders have a LOT of advantages over the attackers, which wouldn't be so bad if it was balanced out a bit more.

And back to the artillery being a part of the core problem with the 124 rules.

You see, the biggest and most ridiculous problem with the whole 124 rules is the fact that the defenders get their artillery for free while the attackers have to pay at least 1,500 or so gold for moveable artillery. That doesn't seem very fair if you ask me.

And there's also how overpowered manually aiming the wall artillery can be.

I mean, I've literally seen many bad players be able to inflict tons of damage upon not only my artillery but my army at times as well. I've seen these kinds of terrible players be able to basically machine gun down units or towers with their wall artillery, which can be rapidly fired.

Not to mention how random the effect of flaming arrows can be against the wall artillery.

Sometimes it only takes one volley, other times it takes like 4 or 5 volleys of flaming arrows to destroy the wall artillery.

The point is, that the defenders have so many freaking advantages that it has all but broken siege battles in the game, and trying to force rules that further limit attackers is just plain ridiculous to say the least.


But I hope that my pointing out some of these obvious problems will get people to actually think about how to get better at not only Rome 2 MP, but the MP of all TW games without relying on OP crutches in order to win half the battle.

Quit trying to rely on ridiculous nonsense to win a battle, learn to actually accept a challenge in a strategy game.

If you want a better overhaul MP experience with Rome 2, then try this mod
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2168038091
that I made to greatly enhance the MP of the vanilla game.

[Yews]

You are trying to have a reasonable discussion with a community that thinks that kicking a new player out of every match because that player is new is normal.

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by Yews:

You are trying to have a reasonable discussion with a community that thinks that kicking a new player out of every match because that player is new is normal.

No, I'm really just venting my frustrations at how dumbed down the MP became in this game. But I do agree, that is pretty dumb as well.

I just remember the "good old days" of when the Rome 2 sieges were actually fun and people actually wanted to be the attackers. I just wish I knew how to at least change some factors of siege battles to make them more fun again.

[Yews]

Simple, throw rules out the window

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by Yews:

Simple, throw rules out the window

If only it were so easy. Which I guess it could be.

But I don't think that the ideas of some general rules themselves are the problem, it's the fact that part of them were made to pretty much hamstring the attackers when it comes to siege battles.

Because I'll go right ahead and say it.

I think that it was the bad players who rely on crutches to win battles that caused the rules to go from 224 or 234 to the 124 rules we have now. Because I remember the times when it was 224 which were the rules for siege battle.

But those were the players who got their butts handed to them by players smart enough to out play them, be it with holding back their artillery and bombard the enemy citadel or whatever, who didn't just play to the defender's tune.

[Ypulse]

The 124 rule has its origin from competitive scene, but sadly it is butchered in public and not the full rule are in action. (btw it is meant for siege only not land battles, however most players use it for land battles as well in public)

in short looks like this:
2 vs 2 no same faction
Unit Size: Ultra
Large funds
124+1 javelin unit
7 of the same
No pike stacking
No deployables

more indepth rules can be read here
https://www.curvedbubbles.com/siege

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by Ypulse:

The 124 rule has its origin from competitive scene, but sadly it is butchered in public and not the full rule are in action. (btw it is meant for siege only not land battles, however most players use it for land battles as well in public)

in short looks like this:
2 vs 2 no same faction
Unit Size: Ultra
Large funds
124+1 javelin unit
7 of the same
No pike stacking
No deployables

more indepth rules can be read here
https://www.curvedbubbles.com/siege

I understand what you mean, but I do think that it's greatly abused in public games, as many people know just how to exploit those rules with certain maps and other such things to get pretty easy wins.

And sadly, not all factions were created equal in Rome 2.

And it's really not most of the rules I have an issue with, it's the fact that 1 unit of artillery is practically ONLY useful for knocking down a few sections of wall, and that's if it survives the wall artillery, and the fact that the wall artillery is so OP.

[jdog99378]

124 is just how it is man

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by jdog99378:

124 is just how it is man

I can attest to the fact that that's not entirely true, nor was it always this way.

I've played this game off and on since its release, and I know that it wasn't always the ridiculous nonsense that it is today.

[닝닝 공주님의 기사]

just host a server yourself and dont use 124 rule how about that ?

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie:

just host a server yourself and dont use 124 rule how about that ?

I know that's an option with friends, but sadly so many who play the Rome 2 MP are brainwashed with the "if the 'pros' do it then I should too" mentality that it wouldn't be all that easy to find enough players to have a proper game with.

I honestly just wish I had made the mod I posted above earlier, then maybe more people would play something other than 124 all the time.

But I guess I could just try doing that just for the heck of it.

[4rdi]

I can relate to this. I love playing as one of the Nomadic Tribes in an open-field battle. As a nomadic tribe, you normally wield an army that is composed entirely of cavalry and horse archers. It is not possible to play any battle with a Scythian, Massagetae or Roxolani army that is capped at 4 (horse)archer units! Horse archers and skirmishers need to make up at least half, if not more, of the army. The 124 rules, at least when there is no derogation for the nomadic, render Scythia, Massagetae or Roxolani unplayable. That's a whole DLC worth of factions just thrown out for no reason.

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by 4rdi:

I can relate to this. I love playing as one of the Nomadic Tribes in an open-field battle. As a nomadic tribe, you normally wield an army that is composed entirely of cavalry and horse archers. It is not possible to play any battle with a Scythian, Massagetae or Roxolani army that is capped at 4 (horse)archer units! Horse archers and skirmishers need to make up at least half, if not more, of the army. The 124 rules, at least when there is no derogation for the nomadic, render Scythia, Massagetae or Roxolani unplayable. That's a whole DLC worth of factions just thrown out for no reason.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm talking about.

And with how dumb some people can be about things, there's also plenty of people who limit the factions the GC or grand campaign only or even say stuff like "No Rome or Kush" because they can't handle any sort of challenge.

I'll give anyone that the ED Roman factions are OP, but some of the other ones are actually underpowered compared to other factions.

I just wish some people would be less spineless and learn to accept a loss or two at a video game.

But I do wish that they would've officially given the nomad factions some proper infantry units.

[Preacher]

Originally posted by 4rdi:

I can relate to this. I love playing as one of the Nomadic Tribes in an open-field battle. As a nomadic tribe, you normally wield an army that is composed entirely of cavalry and horse archers. It is not possible to play any battle with a Scythian, Massagetae or Roxolani army that is capped at 4 (horse)archer units! Horse archers and skirmishers need to make up at least half, if not more, of the army. The 124 rules, at least when there is no derogation for the nomadic, render Scythia, Massagetae or Roxolani unplayable. That's a whole DLC worth of factions just thrown out for no reason.

To be fair, how many land battles do you see out there with 124? It's usually thrown out the window.

[Preacher]

What do you want more arty for? Breaches? But we basically have unlimited equipment and not to mention we can share torts.

Arty for killing men? Well, you'd probably want mobile bc I personally have a heck of a time getting my fixed arty to hit anything. But if you want 224, thats over 3000 for mobile arty. Wouldnt you want to take more inf?

Genuine questions btw, let us discuss.

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by Preacher:

What do you want more arty for? Breaches? But we basically have unlimited equipment and not to mention we can share torts.

Arty for killing men? Well, you'd probably want mobile bc I personally have a heck of a time getting my fixed arty to hit anything. But if you want 224, thats over 3000 for mobile arty. Wouldnt you want to take more inf?

Genuine questions btw, let us discuss.

No, it's fine.

But the second part is kind of why I think 124 is so dumb, as the artillery in general in Rome 2 is so freaking inaccurate, you need more than one unit of them to be even a bit effective at bombarding enemies.

Because I've seen 2 units, that's 8 pieces of artillery, shoot at a single section of wall, and 6 of those flaming rocks fly right over the wall missing it. It was so bad that I had to increase their accuracy in the mod I posted from 5 to 65 to be effective against walls.

And you'd be surprised at just how effective 2 units of artillery can be if used together, especially if the attacking team works together. And I think that what some bad players figured out and came up with the 1 in 124 to limit the attackers even more.

I just think it's ridiculous that so many people not only use 124 almost religiously, but also then try to limit what factions can be used as well.