Legion Arena , An excellent start

[thorwald]

Just purchased and finished playing Legion arena about 10 times with all the different mods and as the 'latins' Romans and Celts.

The combat / Battlefield strategy in this game has incredible depth and versatility. I found I was able to be succesful with several different types of troop compositions and that added hugely to the enjoyment of beating the game. I sincerly hope that this is not the end of the series.

Not that my opinion matters but heres some things I would like to see in the next expansion of this very well done game.


#1 Keep the battle field complexity. add it to multiplayer.
- The troop development and such is awesome in the Campaign game, but you cannot 'buy' yourself upgrades in the multiplayer version. I think ranking armies by point values would be kool, why not be able to take on someone with a larger or better equipped and experienced army from time to time? But it would be great to be able to build an army that develops from duel to duel. A system that somehow parallels the scenarios in the game would be awesome..waht if you could take the army you developed in the In game scenario online? A point matching system that searched your save games could give you more options for online play.

#2 Add an 'Empire ' Building Element.
- Legion had the empire building element with a few scenarios, Arena has this nice historical lesson in it. Why not add empire building back in? Would add a lot to the depth of the game.

#3 Differening levels of difficulty.
- Increasing levels of difficulty would be great for replay value.

#4 More Campaigns
- The Germanic Campaign was sadly missing, how about the scythian campaign, more on Egypt and Asia Minor?

#5 More Periods
- Western rome was well represented, How about Eastern Rome and the Byzantines?

#5 More Units
- Horse Archers and Chariots most notably, Cataphract Cavalry was in the game but we couldent ever build em , would be nice !

#6 Siege Warfare
- Would have loved to be able to stand behind a wall against those barbarian hordes with a single auxiliary infantry, but even greater would be a fully expanded ability to lay siege on castles and to construct temporary and permanent fortifications. Pits, Caltrops, Stakes, Towers, Siege Engines, Hand held Flamethrowers etc... UNLEASH HELL!

#7 Custom Maps
- Build our own maps and play on them, host them online perhaps.

#8 Online Competitive Scenarios
- Take some of the in game scenarios and enable them online, or do ongoing developement ( if warranted) for online scenarios.
l
#9 Interface Control Improvements
- Allow a more developed battle plan- Such as Setting the speed of units during manuevers, specifically targetting units before battle begins , Settings for untis such as 'suppression fire ' for archers or 'aim for the horses '. Or simply fire at nearest opportunity . A button to trigger waypoints would be a simple welcome addition and to tell the unit how fast to proceed through its way points. The control is a bit clunky as it stands... although admittedly there would have to be some incongruousness in control in a real battle...but some improvement here could be a plus.

#10 More options or ranges in the Online Points sytem.
- A Unlimited option, or one that would allow differing point values for each army , or a 'handicap' valuation might be fun and keep the challenge up for all.


Ok now that I have porposed a 2 year development project, Let me know if you want a more detailed development plan !

I must say that being as the game is more or less Battle only it was overall very well done and enjoyable to a great extent from that aspect alone, would love to see it get more replay value.

Theres my 2 cents , lots more to say , but Hopefully all of this has already been thought of ... hope there is more to come.

[pipfromslitherine]

Glad to hear you enjoyed the game. We would have loved to include a whole raft of extras, but sadly the real world means we have to cut some features in order to be done in a timely manner! But we are certainly looking forward to improving on Legion : Arena in future titles.

One thing to note is that there is already a difficulty level slider on the options page, so you can try playing on Very Hard and let us know how you get on

You might also want to try out the two mods currently available.

Cheers

Pip

[Redpossum]

Hey, interesting post!

Have you tried my Britannicus mod? It's a whole new Celtic campaign, and really the only "new" campaign anyone has done thus far. The other mod is the stock campaigns with lower supply of replacements

If you DL the modpack from Slitherine, (which contains both my Britannicus mod and the Berserker mod referred to above), rather than just the Britannicus mod from the link above, be aware that the readme is missing (blame Slitherine).

The link above takes you to a thread in the mod forum here, and the readme is reproduced in the first post

[thorwald]

Actually that was a really fun mod yes I played it several times, thank you! Just played it through today for the third time in fact.

As far as the Difficulty slider I think I will try it... But after playing the game for about a week I have churned through the scenarios too many times already I think.

My settings for online play either do not work or their is not a hot following where you can get a game anytime you want? I am not going to turn my firewall of that's for sure so I may be SOL if its a setting problem. Some help there woudl be good , woudlent mind trying some of my army designs online.

I have as I said in my post tried all mods with both races multiple times. Great combat engine but plays shorter than the average PS2 console. <SNIFF>

[pipfromslitherine]

I think you may be at the expert end of the range . I for one can't clear it in any decent time! On the other hand I finished Lylat Wars in about 6 hours, but then I went back and played it over and over - and I considered it time well spent. It's a tricky line to walk

wrt online - I think it's more that few people are online. This is probably a good place to note your desire to play - there are a number of people who I am sure will want to try and show you waz up

Cheers

Pip

[thorwald]

Well thanks for the complement , but I am pretty sure I have no idea how good I am! Usually single player skills and PVP skills are very different.

I just cleared the Celt Campaign at 'hard' this morning.That took about 2 hours. I may try the Roman Campaign at Very Hard as that is the longest and has some of the most challenging scenarios. Although there is a real Pita in the Brittanic Campaign when you have to cross the river into italy. That might possibly be the most challenging just due to the time constraint and the mix of troops neccesary to pull it off quickly.

Thanks for the Feedback and info!

[Redpossum]

Hmm, you're the second person to say they'd actually played my Britannicus campaign through, (tora^3 was the first), and both of you have mentioned that the "Crossing the Rubicon" scenario was the toughest of them all.

This just goes to highlight the importance of playtesting, but I would have expected the Londinium and Londinium pt II scenarios to be the toughest. Historically, this was where the Iceni revolt failed; when the Iceni routed off the field, there was no "other wing" to challenge Suetonius and his bully boys.

Just in passing, my research led me to believe that Slitherine may have fudged dates a bit in their stock Celtic campaign. The player is on Anglesey, and then back on the mainland in time for the start of the Iceni Revolt. The historical sources I read led me to believe that the revolt actually started while Roman governor Gaius Suetonius Paulinus and his crack Legio XIV Gemina were on Anglesey slaughtering the druids, and so this is the way events are portrayed in my campaign.

This is not to criticise Slitherine. All gods witness, almost any account of important events in the ancient world contains more than enough ambiguity to allow for various interpretations. Furthermore, Anglesey is a great scenario, a real white-knuckle gut-check. And I would not for one instant want to see it left out of the Celtic campaign in the name of historical verisimilitude.

*************

Addendum -

I just had a tactical epiphany. I know why I did not find the "Crossing the Rubicon" scenario that difficult. I tend to build cavalry-heavy armies. This allowed me to charge the units in clear terrain on both flanks with 2 heavy cavalry units per flank. This is probably why I found it relatively easy. I was across the river, routed the legionaries, and trampled the shit out of the archers before they had time to quill me too badly.

If I'd had to advance at an infantry pace two bad things would have happened -

1) It would simply have taken longer, making the time restriction that more onerous.

2) I'd have been under the fire of those sons-of-perdition archers for much longer.

[thorwald]

Yes, Crossing the Rubicon is very difficult with any mix of forces due to the lvl 16 archers .. even with cavalry units they need to have good missle defence( or large numbers) to guarantee that they can rip the archers before getting ripped themselves. That said it's not that its impossible to clear at all actually I used a heavy lt infantry assault and it worked great... Just had to get the timing right.

4+ Units of Lt Infantry Supported by skirmishers attacks in mass through the forest and rips the archers n skirmishers etc, then ( if the lt infantry is good enough) takes apart the heavy infantry units both inside and outside the forested area. My flanking units would be given an order to attack the opposite flank on each side that way they swept the units in between.

My easiest Run there was with 8 Heavy cav units. I didn't even have to issue any order cept charge. Well and attack the archers.

[thorwald]

Had some interesting experiences so far in very hard mode. LVL 5 Heavy Infantry destroying LVL 13 Lt Infantry on Scrub ..and taking like no casualties. Lvl 5 Heavy infantry facing 4 lvl 13 Heavy cavalry units and winning again taking little or no casualties. Very interesting....to say the least. Seem like all the rules of warfare get thrown out the window in the spirit of creating a challenge. Not to mention that the Heavy infantry in question was Naked fanatics...

[sum1won]

Fanatics are unusual infantry in any case. They dont seem to take as much from being disorganized, and when they get in melee they will always cause serious casualties- attempting to swarm under fanatics is often a recipe for disaster, and on hard level they do get very strong.

Frankly, celtic light infantry is way better than roman. For roman light infantry in my second campaign run, I used a few archer units instead, with upgraded melee skills.

Roman auxila arent good against anything with armor piercing or armor- although they can crush militia and ranged units fairly well

[thorwald]

Funny comment about fanatics ..in my view they suck totally, Spent way too much time developing fanatic units only to see them run from any kind of fight.
But my point is not unit vs unit as much as the actual changes I have witnessed going from Hard to very hard...Its not the only incongruity only the most striking one. There is no way in hell a single lvl 5 fanatic SHOULD be able to take on 4+ 12+ lvl cavalry units with equip in open terrain.. but maybe I am the only one with that view here.


Your comment on Celt Infantry stands though your view of Aux inf seems prejudiced. I kill heavy infantry all the time with them.I Did develop a Celt Lt infantry Cav only army. That was a lot of fun.

I always develop thier missle defence and block as soon as possible...Ohh and I typically put them on Defensive vs units in the open. I dont expect them to be able to take on units that are on a parity with them ..but any unit 10 lvls less then they are when I have equipped them and upgraded them should at least take some reasonable casualties.

Thanks for the response.

Just finished Roman Campaign on hard and Did The Brittania campaign on hard... so Its been fun ..but the game is done look forward to the next one. Hope it has more replay value.

[IainMcNeil]

The only thing that changes on the harder difficulty level is the enemy chance to hit & their hit points. All of the strengths & weaknesses still apply and you have to make even more use of them. An normal the AI has disadvantages, on hard it is equal and on very hard the AI has bonuses.

[thorwald]

The AI Bonuses must be very significant, and the + to hps and to hit too ... enough to make for a 5+ lvl difference in effectiveness? Because a single LVL X Unit that is well equipped in this game vs 4+ Lvl X Units not as well equipped in terrain that favors both I can see. But otherwise I can't.

[IainMcNeil]

If you like you can adjust the values. They are all in tweaks.txt in the data directory. Look for the bit about AI difficulty & there are a few numbers that control the % bonus the AI gets to hit points & chance to hit.

[sum1won]

Funny comment about fanatics ..in my view they suck totally, Spent way too much time developing fanatic units only to see them run from any kind of fight.
But my point is not unit vs unit as much as the actual changes I have witnessed going from Hard to very hard...Its not the only incongruity only the most striking one. There is no way in hell a single lvl 5 fanatic SHOULD be able to take on 4+ 12+ lvl cavalry units with equip in open terrain.. but maybe I am the only one with that view here.


Your comment on Celt Infantry stands though your view of Aux inf seems prejudiced. I kill heavy infantry all the time with them.I Did develop a Celt Lt infantry Cav only army. That was a lot of fun.

I always develop thier missle defence and block as soon as possible...Ohh and I typically put them on Defensive vs units in the open. I dont expect them to be able to take on units that are on a parity with them ..but any unit 10 lvls less then they are when I have equipped them and upgraded them should at least take some reasonable casualties.

Thanks for the response.

Just finished Roman Campaign on hard and Did The Brittania campaign on hard... so Its been fun ..but the game is done look forward to the next one. Hope it has more replay value.

It isnt really that prejudiced- Ive won most multiplayer games using celts. Celtic light infantry are fairly decent against other units, especially in rough terrain. This is partially because they have decent dodge and armor piercing, which enables them to be decent in a stand up fight against stronger, better protected units. Aux infantry, however, have more armor instead of dodge, which means that they are fighting heavy inf in a game the heavy inf are already better at. Since they dont have good armor pierce, it is difficult for them to deal serious damage to armored units, even if the armored units are bogged down in a swamp.

Most celtic units got weaker in the patch, though. Still, celtic inf are a better deal than auxilary inf, simply because of better armor piercing.

Aggresive is a better stance than defensive once you get in melee, btw.

Also, the game is great for multiplayer. Get an xfire name and start challenging- zappsweden plays reguarly, and Im good for a game come friday. Perhaps you can get some of the others to play as well!

[thorwald]

Well I didn't disagree about the Celtic POWAH. Just finished the Britannia Campaign at very hard and it was generally much easier than the Roman Campaign with a couple exceptions. And the Gallic Campaign is just easier , so I am sure that woudl be a relative cakewalk now that I have done Roman and Brittania.

Defensive VS infantry unsupported by Cav or Archery or Skirmish when you are in some such way supported is a very good approach in the normal game. It allows the hammer and anvil effect vs infantry. Often take very little damage and inflict a lot, which lends to easier achievement of victory conditions. It is also a great way to screen missle troops with a broader front that is a bit harder to flank.

Aggresive makes you more resistant to cavalry charges , and inflict more casualties yourself. A very good thing if you are going to go down anyway or if you have overwhelming force, or if your unit design is all about laying down hurt and who cares if you take any damage yourself...the 'just knock em down and sort it out afterwards approach ' . Philosophically it is a lot like a long held belief of elite American military DPS = GOD (until recently). Practically speaking there are times to do it and times not to do it. DONT run into lvl 17 archers from accross the field in aggresive ... y o u w i l l d i e, switching back and forth would be good , but you would have to be in arcade mode to pull it off unless you were fighting like 4 units at a time or something. Also not sure if switching contributes to disorder or not.

Overall I would say Balanced is the 'best' stance by far because if you are running 16 units micromanaging every unit's stance could alone let you miss the main tactical flow of the game. Personally I like to set a stance and not change it cept in dire need. Although I think it woudl be totally appropriate if the Unit automatically adjusted to conditions, specially if they were disciplined troops. ' CAVALRY! SET SPEARS! '

[Redpossum]

Just finished the Britannia Campaign at very hard and it was generally much easier than the Roman Campaign with a couple exceptions.

Wow, my hat is off to you. You're a better player than I am, obviously.

I find Very Hard not much fun at all.

[thorwald]

Well thank you. It can definitely get tense and I had to rethink the way I play a lot of the scenarios. For me it's all about Troop quality and composition. I find it gets real easy once your troops get up to snuff, except for the time constrained scenarios those can be a pita since the fights just generally take longer. I found instead of the way I normally upgrade my troops I had to tune all the marks up for maximum DAMAGE. Only way to finish some of the scenarios. Ohh and I always get rid of the junky starting force , waste of time and exp imo..trade em in for some quality troops right away.

Also there are some key 'power' troops imo for the early scenarios. Generally the sooner you can get some quality CAV the better . Gallic nobles or Auxiliary Cav can make the early scenarios go by fast..along with some lt troops for those difficult scenarios where you face a lot of heavies with some rough , boggy or forested ground to stand on. But that's jsut my method..I like TRAMPLE.

[Redpossum]

Haha, Thorwald, as anybody who's read my posts here for a while will tell you, I'm a big, big, big aficionado of Heavy Cavalry in Legion Arena.

There's nothing like them, but you only get 24 and not 48, that's the big drawback. Cavalry units just can't soak up the damage and keep going like Infantry can.

But as far and mobile and heavily badass, yeah. Heavy Cavalry in LA is a perfect illustration of Ke=MV^2

[thorwald]

Yes Possum as stated they are only 24 units but I like to get a Noble or Aux Cav early on and virtually Cruise through the early Scenarios with all the light troops there.

This is a typical build I will do.

1st Unit = Aux Inf or Warrior
2nd Unit = Noble or Aux cav ( I buy Militia and skirmishers and turn them in if I need help with the scenarios till I make the money ) <WINK>
3rd Unit = Best Heavy Infantry , Veteran or Legionnaire depending maybe a Principe or Triari
4th Unit = Heavy inf again
5th Unit = Skirmish or Archer
6th Unit = Another CAV

Then I get a second Warrior or Aux and start piling on Archers n skirmishers and More Heavy infantry usually. I experiment with different builds ..I have gone as high as 8 Cav units abandoning Heavy infantry altogether which works fine in games up to hard. 4 Warriors, 8 Nobles , 6 Archers and 2 Javelin..was probably the most fun army I have yet made. On very hard you are basically forced to use heavy units, the heavier th ebetter, and lots of em. At least 4 Heavy units to get through the Very hard setting in my experience. BUt as I said before you can use Cav to get through the early scenarios with Panach! Rumble rumble rumble ..Trample trample trample...My personal highest kill with a single cav unit was like 300ish. My best Triari Unit once did 162, go figure.