What are the main things you want to see fixed from EB1 in EB2???

I haven't posted on here in forever it seems like. The only thing I could think of to keep in mind, and not sure if this has been said already, but take for example thureophoroi and thorakitai. The description for the thureophoroi says they're faster moving and more mobile than the thorakitai; in-game, they don't have the fast moving attribute because if I remember correctly their model isn't done that way. Or something. In-game I haven't noticed a speed difference so yeah. Bottom line it: if a unit is fast moving or more mobile than standard infantry, maybe make sure they have the fast moving attribute? Thanks all, and the EB team. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Pyrrhos

I haven't posted on here in forever it seems like. The only thing I could think of to keep in mind, and not sure if this has been said already, but take for example thureophoroi and thorakitai. The description for the thureophoroi says they're faster moving and more mobile than the thorakitai; in-game, they don't have the fast moving attribute because if I remember correctly their model isn't done that way. Or something. In-game I haven't noticed a speed difference so yeah. Bottom line it: if a unit is fast moving or more mobile than standard infantry, maybe make sure they have the fast moving attribute? Thanks all, and the EB team. :)

---

This brings me to a very important point, regarding the accuracy and historicity of the EB mod - that it lacks to accurately portray, in various units, the reflection of historical attributes (such as armor, weapons, and renown historical evidence) through its stat values.

Anyone, who plays EB, knows that although, in game, the Greek Classical Hoplite cannot beat a Reformed Legionary Cohort in direct confrontation, it can nevertheless pretty much match it in strength (the 20 man advantage per unit being the difference)...

The stat values are the reason for this, as one can see through analysis of the stat values for each unit: (Attack, Armor, Shield, D Skill, Morale, Lethality.)

Hoplite: (14, 11, 4, 8, 12, 0.13).

Cohort: (11, 10, 4, 8, 14, 0.13).

One can see that the hoplite, through the stats, is pretty much an equal to the cohort, only lacking in number of soldiers (40) by 10 less from the cohort.

However, the in-game description of each unit, their historicity, along with common sense would make one wonder why the game would render any hoplite unit even close in comparison to the cohort:

Hoplite

Each hoplite is equipped with linen or leather armor, an aspis shield, greaves, the attic style helmet and of course, his spear.


Cohort

Roman legionnaires are now uniformly equipped with two pila, a gladius, and an elliptical scutum around 1.28m high. Their main armour still remains a coat of lorica hamata (chain mail) and a Montefortino-type helmet.


What I highlighted I hope illustrates the discrepancy that I hint at. To me, it is unrealistic that a unit with "leather/linen" armor be given the same basic armor value as one with metal armor, let alone let it have a greater value (11 / 10). Furthermore, its shield is much smaller and, hence, would protect the user less, yet the hoplite possesses no such disadvantage if one analyzes the stats. There should be no protest with skill and morale, but as far as lethality, one again becomes suspicious. The gladius was a renown weapon of atrocity, known to be made to permanently disable opponents if not to kill them. The spear, well as they say, is just a spear.

I think it would be great to see this added accuracy coupled with an expanded stat pool - such as maybe the movement speed that is referred to above, if possible - because it would only enhance the historical theme the mod represents.

Well, you're a bit off on the stats for hoplite vs legionary, for these reasons: the light-spear attribute gives, I believe, -4 to defense rating (but some bonuses vs cavalry), so the hoplite in that instance actually has less defense than the legionary. As for protection of the armor, both the chainmail and the linen/leather are behind a shield. Moreover the overhand-spear formation doesn't require as much movement of the shield, which is wide and at some points in history and can help the neighbor as well. It does not extend as low as the scutum, true, but don't forget the greaves - plate armor for the lower legs, something the legionaries didn't have. Reduced length in the shield thus doesn't equate to less protection. The higher armor value isn't linothorax or leather vs chainmail, I'm guessing its largely a result of the greaves.

But most importantly, consider that hoplites in particular, and to a lesser extent Roman cohorts, do not all share identical equipment. A whole host of things will affect their equipment, not least of which is region the units are recruited in and the time-period being represented. There are also other differences in the unit, such as the density of the formation, etc. Overall, the EB team has done an incredible job representing historical battles and soldiers. Remember also, that hoplite vs legion battles don't have to just look good, so too do hoplite vs falxman or legionaire vs celtic levy spearmen.

Questioning EB's accuracy is foolish - one can always find tiny points to quibble with, but its accuracy in details and as a whole is incredibly good. As a fan of the mod, I don't appreciate you implying that the team didn't put forth a strong effort to historically represent units - their work obviously shows otherwise.

I still gotta wonder why Neitos have 12 armor and Druegalozez and Xosenthozez have only 9...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterFred

Well, you're a bit off on the stats for hoplite vs legionary, for these reasons: the light-spear attribute gives, I believe, -4 to defense rating (but some bonuses vs cavalry), so the hoplite in that instance actually has less defense than the legionary. As for protection of the armor, both the chainmail and the linen/leather are behind a shield. Moreover the overhand-spear formation doesn't require as much movement of the shield, which is wide and at some points in history and can help the neighbor as well. It does not extend as low as the scutum, true, but don't forget the greaves - plate armor for the lower legs, something the legionaries didn't have. Reduced length in the shield thus doesn't equate to less protection. The higher armor value isn't linothorax or leather vs chainmail, I'm guessing its largely a result of the greaves.

But most importantly, consider that hoplites in particular, and to a lesser extent Roman cohorts, do not all share identical equipment. A whole host of things will affect their equipment, not least of which is region the units are recruited in and the time-period being represented. There are also other differences in the unit, such as the density of the formation, etc. Overall, the EB team has done an incredible job representing historical battles and soldiers. Remember also, that hoplite vs legion battles don't have to just look good, so too do hoplite vs falxman or legionaire vs celtic levy spearmen.

Questioning EB's accuracy is foolish - one can always find tiny points to quibble with, but its accuracy in details and as a whole is incredibly good. As a fan of the mod, I don't appreciate you implying that the team didn't put forth a strong effort to historically represent units - their work obviously shows otherwise.

---

I think that is the main difference between you and me. You see EB as the ultimate authority in historical facts, I see them as our interpreters. I see us questioning EB's accuracy as our insurance they do a good job, as opposed to your approach of blind faith.

As to the point, I don't seek to bring up specifics like (oh in this region they had more iron helmets than bronze... you know?!)

I'm just seeking a system that is consistent and reliable... so let me ask you then... in regards to the post before mine... why isn't the light hoplite faster than the heavier one? There is no value for movement speed, only an attribute that is why (such as 'Fast Moving'). And even under such circumstances, the attribute is still lacking... isn't it Mr. Kikaz???



Oh, and regards to the whole yea but they're spearmen and they get a penalty, it should have NO bearing on a units basic stats... if, when in combination with certain unit types, such as spear v. sword or spear v. horse, sure let there be penalties and advantages for after all it is a game!... but don't assume that leather armor can protect as well as metal, dont assume a spear is as lethal as a sword, and don't assume a hoplite's fighting style to be efficient to the cohort's.

The only problem I see with the stats is the fact that a scutum should protect the legionary better, the other stats are ok. The legionary doesn't need the greaves because his legs are mostly protected by the shield. But still the hoplite has a bigger part of his body covered by armour.
But when in history did the classical hoplite face a post-marian legionary?
What you seem to forget SlickNica is the fact that there is the not-totally-realistic engine that is not able to portray the advantages and disadvantages of all kinds of soldiers. If you change stats in a way to portray how the units would have fought against romans... that would be a little bit roman-centric. A weak hoplite would probably be to easy prey for some eastern units. Balancing isn't easy and it needs much time to test all the units. It's not perfect in EB and I believe it is that way because the team does EB II and has no time to perfectly balancing out EB I. I change stats myself when I see something I dislike, you know...
But how much tests did you make to surely know how everything would work if you changed it the way you want it? At least the EB team has done the mod and probably knows more about balancing then you do.

But at the end, this is still the forum for EB II and not EB I and the lethality of spears and shortswords won't be a problem since there is no lethality in the M2TW engine. I doubt that balancing of unit stats will be much better since it is much harder without lethality.

It would still be really nice if you could stop beeing so aggressive. It helps noone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterFred

Questioning EB's accuracy is foolish - one can always find tiny points to quibble with, but its accuracy in details and as a whole is incredibly good. As a fan of the mod, I don't appreciate you implying that the team didn't put forth a strong effort to historically represent units - their work obviously shows otherwise.

---

If everybody stopped being skeptical, I would recommend everyone start panicking. Who knows the miseries people would submit to. Always good to question, inquire, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kikaz

I still gotta wonder why Neitos have 12 armor and Druegalozez and Xosenthozez have only 9...

---

This pretty much goes with Slick's argument. There's a bunch of little...what are they called, anomalies? like this, in EB. And I always figured the modders had some good reason, whether it be balancing or otherwise, for placing those anomalies there. I'm not a modder, I wouldn't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

I think that is the main difference between you and me. You see EB as the ultimate authority in historical facts, I see them as our interpreters. I see us questioning EB's accuracy as our insurance they do a good job, as opposed to your approach of blind faith.

---

That's actually a frighteningly good point by you Slick. Kind of reminds me of all the history we're fed in all the courses nowadays. Always good not to take them all at face-value. Step back a bit sometimes, yeah. Good stuff.

Quote:

---

But still the hoplite has a bigger part of his body covered by armour.
But when in history did the classical hoplite face a post-marian legionary?
What you seem to forget SlickNica is the fact that there is the not-totally-realistic engine that is not able to portray the advantages and disadvantages of all kinds of soldiers.

---

I agree. There should be no need to speculate on how much of an advantage it was to be a hoplite vs. legionary, etc. Therefore there should be no stat that delves that much into specifics. The generic, current standard, of applying 'mount' effects, I think is sufficient enough, which applies to whole classes, such as spearman v. swordsman. However, the fact you pointed out of "double greaves/smaller shield" v. "no greaves/bigger shield" is easy to solve! (rough estimate):

Hoplite: Shield - 3, Armor 12 [Linothorax (6), Helmet (2), 2 Greaves (4)].

Cohort: Shield - 5, Armor 10 [Chainmail (8), Helmet (2)].

It is important to get these right, as the classical hoplite, would not only have less overall armor, less protection from missles, and be more vulnerable to ap units (which I believe the cohorts to be), but the unit comparison in game would theoretically be pretty much historically accurate as well...

Quote:

---

That's actually a frighteningly good point by you Slick ... Good stuff.

---

Thank you Vartan. This is the first time I've actually felt your warmth... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Hoplite: Shield - 3, Armor 12 [Linothorax (6), Helmet (2), 2 Greaves (4)].

Cohort: Shield - 5, Armor 10 [Chainmail (8), Helmet (2)].

It is important to get these right, as the classical hoplite, would not only have less overall armor, less protection from missles, and be more vulnerable to ap units (which I believe the cohorts to be), but the unit comparison in game would theoretically be pretty much historically accurate as well...

---

I'm a bit confused by this. I think one point that MisterFred was trying to make was that it is reasonable for Hoplites and Cohorts to have the same shield values, due to Hoplite's smaller shield's being offset by their greaves. Meaning, the greaves would be contributing to their shield value, not armor, since they mostly protect from frontal attacks. I think giving Hoplites a higher armor rating than Cohorts based on the fact that they wear greaves would be erroneous. As I understand the way those stats work in-game is like this:
Shields only provide their full value of protection from frontal attacks, giving only half their value of protection from side attacks, and no protection from rear attacks.
Armor provides the same value of protection from all angles. Armor piercing weapons reducing this value by half.

So if Hoplites are indeed armored more heavily toward their front, then this should be reflected via a higher shield value, possibly even equal to that of Cohorts. Their actual armor rating would be less than that of Cohorts. I think this makes sense.

As for the attack values, I'm very unclear on what the actual in-game effects of the Spear and Short Spear attributes are. I think one significantly reduces the units defense against infantry while the other reduces their attack. I think this was a very bad decision on CA's part, since it makes it pretty much impossible to judge how well a spear unit will perform against infantry by simply looking at their in-game description stats. If spears are supposed to be inferior weapons to swords, then spear units ought to simply have lower attack values. There's already inherent bonuses for spears versus cavalry, so having an additional, hidden nerf to their performance against infantry is just frustrating to players like myself. I think the EB team addressed this issue by giving spear units higher base defense and attack scores than comparable sword units. It's still hard for anyone who doesn't know the actual penalties (as well as which class of spear the unit is considered to be carrying) to determine how a spear unit stands in comparison with other units.

I may be wrong since I wasn't a part of the team when we did the stating, but the reason for the hoplite shields having a higher value was due to it's construction rather than just its size. On size alone, the scutum and thureos would have higher values, but the aspis is bronze-faced making it far sturdier and heavier. For example, we know from Carrhae that the recurve, composite bow can have arrows penetrate the scutum's leather coverings and layers of wood (although the layering does not seem to have always present). I can think of no similar circumstance with the aspis despite its long history fighting against similar weapons.

Don't Neitos have the double layer of chain over the shoulders? Similarly Cohors have similarly high armor ratings minus the points for chain sleeves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

I'm a bit confused by this. I think one point that MisterFred was trying to make was that it is reasonable for Hoplites and Cohorts to have the same shield values, due to Hoplite's smaller shield's being offset by their greaves. Meaning, the greaves would be contributing to their shield value, not armor, since they mostly protect from frontal attacks. I think giving Hoplites a higher armor rating than Cohorts based on the fact that they wear greaves would be erroneous. As I understand the way those stats work in-game is like this:
Shields only provide their full value of protection from frontal attacks, giving only half their value of protection from side attacks, and no protection from rear attacks.
Armor provides the same value of protection from all angles. Armor piercing weapons reducing this value by half.

So if Hoplites are indeed armored more heavily toward their front, then this should be reflected via a higher shield value, possibly even equal to that of Cohorts. Their actual armor rating would be less than that of Cohorts. I think this makes sense.

As for the attack values, I'm very unclear on what the actual in-game effects of the Spear and Short Spear attributes are. I think one significantly reduces the units defense against infantry while the other reduces their attack. I think this was a very bad decision on CA's part, since it makes it pretty much impossible to judge how well a spear unit will perform against infantry by simply looking at their in-game description stats. If spears are supposed to be inferior weapons to swords, then spear units ought to simply have lower attack values. There's already inherent bonuses for spears versus cavalry, so having an additional, hidden nerf to their performance against infantry is just frustrating to players like myself. I think the EB team addressed this issue by giving spear units higher base defense and attack scores than comparable sword units. It's still hard for anyone who doesn't know the actual penalties (as well as which class of spear the unit is considered to be carrying) to determine how a spear unit stands in comparison with other units.

---

It is important, when applying stats, to adhere to certain standards or rules when applying them, so that even when a discrepancy may arise, one can state that it was based on a set, logical system and is therefore fair and balanced to its players.

When you say,

Quote:

---

it is reasonable for Hoplites and Cohorts to have the same shield values, due to Hoplite's smaller shield's being offset by their greaves

---

, this is simply just not consistent with what I stated above. I understand your logic: that sometimes one can develop a more factual rendition by adding exceptions that can't be explained following the rules. But this, to me, eventually leads to people overanalyzing, overbalancing, and, eventually, distorting further what was tried to make clear.

Thus, when you say that the hoplites has greaves, you don't put greaves in the "shield" section just because of the fact that it's solely a "front-protecting" instrument. Otherwise, would we have to develop a way to properly apply helmet values since, for instance, some had chinstraps, others were enclosed? This would go too far, and would lead to an endless debate that "steel helmets are better than bronze, bronze are lighter than steel, etc." The real issue is that the helmet is armor, not a shield; that it is of metal, not a leather cap. It may shield you from an arrow, but it is unlikely that it will shield you from a volley of arrows as a shield would. Thus, putting its value in the shield section would be erroneous because (in-game) it would then imply that the helmet is as good vs arrows as it is in melee combat (actually better if what you described above is true), a clear discrepancy that can be solved with little dispute.

Once again, what I stress is a standard of values for each stat that is based on certain facts about the details involved in the unit's description.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

I think that is the main difference between you and me. You see EB as the ultimate authority in historical facts, I see them as our interpreters. I see us questioning EB's accuracy as our insurance they do a good job, as opposed to your approach of blind faith.

---

Amen, man.
Some people in this forum really believe in anything the team does despite the fact, that the teams creates a game and not a historical book. There are unhistorical things to get a balanced game and then there are things the team had to make up, because of no evidence.
Like 98% of the casse faction. Nobody knows anything for sure about britain in 270 b.c..
Another thing is, that the team has a certain point of view on history not anyone agrees.
"Europa Barbarorum" says it all. The approach is that the "barbarians" were great too and rome wasnt the all mighty moloch many(Or maybe most) historian believe.
For Example CA thought Romes marian soldiers were the strongest in the world as you see in Vanilla.:book: (Vanilla is not too realisitc though)
Anyway there are soooo many things in the EB timeframe, which you can interpretate in many ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

It is important, when applying stats, to adhere to certain standards or rules when applying them, so that even when a discrepancy may arise, one can state that it was based on a set, logical system and is therefore fair and balanced to its players.

---

If I understand you correctly, it seems you are implying that having a consistent, if rigid, system for assigning stats is overall more important than making units function more accurately through the use of more "interpretive" stat assignment. (Perhaps "creative" would be a better word.) I can see the value in that. But I disagree in personal preference here. If EB2 aims for historical accuracy, but the limitations of the game mechanics make it impossible to represent something likes greaves in an accurate way without resorting to distorted stats, I'm in favor of distorting them. I understand what the stats mean, even if they don't correspond to a literal assesment of the units equipment and abilities.

The shield value protects a unit from both melee and ranged attacks, but it is most effective from the front, less effective from the side, and not at all from the rear. If greaves only cover the front side of a soldier's shins, then for all practical in-game purposes, they're shields. I'm perfectly fine with that. The fact that a soldier wears front-facing greaves does not mean he will be any more likely to survive a blow or arrow aimed at his back. So, from my perspective, saying that greaves should add to a unit's armor rating regardless of their limited protection capacity is asking for a less realistic mod. I thought you were arguing for more realistic mod.

Having said all this, I should mention that I really appreciate your original point about consistency and comparative stats and I have no desire to insult your opinions. I feel silly for debating the appropriate application of greaves. But these are things that must be considered when trying to achieve "historical accuracy" in a game.

Giving the Cohors an extra shield point would be reasonable imho still the hoplite should still have his value of 4, afterall the Aspis still covers the "whole body" whereas the legs are protected themselves AND they are really thick so giving them the same armor value as smaller or similar sized wicker shields is well a bit off. still it's your modification and thus I'm the last one to insist on you changing your mind.

At a certain point we stop deciding what would be best for statting, and are just making a list from best to worst of shields. Remember, because of the limits of the engine, fine distinctions are impossible. Try working at the problem from the other direction. Instead of examining in detail whether the aspis or the scutum is better protection in every situation (more fun, I know), create a list of possible shield values and what categories of shield they represent:

0 - Don't got one
1 - Is that a shield or an elbow guard?
2 - Effective shields that are, for whatever reason, small (most cav shields, quality bucklers)
3 - Large shields of decent utility, but which may not be of the very best construction (not as heavy); also, the best cavalry shields
4 - Big 'ole, high-quality infantry shields, capable of reliably protecting against all but artillery shot from at least knees to face
5 - Better than the best - shields which have a higher value because the developers feel it is important to represent some non-shield resistance to missile fire through this stat, not because of the shield itself (e.g. the theoretical ability of phalanx pikes to partially block or disrupt arrows meant for the back ranks of a phalanx formation

Once that silly little exercise is over, it becomes clear that even if you think the aspis is inferior to the scutum or vice-versa, it is still perfectly plausible to give them the same value in-game. Since statting does not permit infinite distinction, we must acknowledge they both (at the very least, ARGUABLY) qualify as "big-ass, high-quality shields." Because further precision is impossible, a 4 for both of them.

Sure if hoplites and roman cohorts were the only units in EB a finer distinction would be possible. But the limitations of the engine prevent a holodeck-like experience.

Edit: By the way, I resent the accusation that I look to EB as an end-all, be-all historical authority (the accusation made by certain people who don't like to be disagreed with). It is easy to recognize, of course, instances in which the team has decided to be very credible to ancient legends (the lakes in Tolosa, the efficacy of drugs used by the Gesaetae, etc.). But I'm not going to ignore their exceptionally high-quality work or insult them by implication, especially when it is incredibly fun to conquer Tolosa and realize the team included that story. There are plenty of things I'd quibble with in their representation - but the fact remains that as a historical recreation of 272 BC in the form of a video game, EB has done a better job that I thought was possible.

Wow, this has suddenly turned into a thread that I really don't want to read anymore. I think that some of what people are saying is coming close to stepping over the line from being critical to being insulting. Sometimes, I really really do not like reading these forums. Its so very easy to criticise, and its so very easy to judge and, in doing so, upset. It is a lot harder to work in a volunteer team to create something complex and, dare I say, it beautiful with dozens of conflicting characters all attempting to work with each other. There have been a plethora of these statting threads and they have invariably attacked and insulted the team - the condensed versions is "oh look, there are some apparent inconsistencies. EB must be a bunch of morons for doing that. i can do it much better, here is my work that i did and is so much better because i know why i did it". I find the tone of these posts hateful and their insinuations of the team hurtful.

For people who quite obviously get so much enjoyment from the mod, it seems that some of you have no sense of respect for those who brought it to you. The EB Team have invariably put their life on hold to work on this mod, I know I have, and to have the work of the fine people that I have known disparaged in such a fashion as I find in this thread and in others is not something that I wish to continue engaging in. Insult away, you fixers of things broken, I hope that your mods are as successfully balanced as you wish them to be. However, this is a suggestion thread for EBII, and as the statting system in M2TW cannot be assumed to work in any fashion close enough to that of RTW to make connections, I would suggest that you move discussion about EBI stats to the EBI forums.

Foot

I always asked my self,why such a mod like this(a great mod,if not the best) hase so low attention,and why are there only 10-15 people that are active and actually post on EB forums(here and at TWC).And the ancer to that is the post above. :shame:

I cannot agree, micko. EB 2 has a big attention as you can see in the preview-threads. Most of the people are just not so loud-voiced and enjoys it without discussing here all the time. And I understand Foots anger very well, some - and too much! - comments here and at the twc are insulting for real to the team. It's not the problem to make other stat-adjustings or to question the reasons but some people act as if the teams are morons and that's just not ok and some should think about their manners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

This brings me to a very important point, regarding the accuracy and historicity of the EB mod - that it lacks to accurately portray, in various units, the reflection of historical attributes (such as armor, weapons, and renown historical evidence) through its stat values.

---

Well your example isn't very good, I'd say. As I understand it, the lineothorax (the linen armour) is essentially much like kevlar and makes actually quite good armour and rather better than low grade chain mail: something that most legionaries would be outfitted with I'd imagine. The scutum of legionaries is a rather light shield too: useful for screening your body and quick movements, but not as useful I'd say when confronted with a heavy axe or similar blunt-force weapon.

This kind of reasoning becomes all the more relevant when you consider that a soldiers equipment may not always have been in perfect condition.

EDIT: And I should note that I don't do the history part in EB2 and am not a historian. So you may want to take the above with a grain of salt, or lookup some more reference material... :shrug: But the bottom line is that when it comes to equipment/artifacts and history in general “common sense” is not a really good way to assess comparative performance of something.

Wow. I didn't want my innocent post at the top of the page 4 to create random arguments and silly accusations. I just wanted to note that fast units, if the EB team thinks so, should be made sure to be given the fast_moving attribute when the time comes....so that there is more variety of uses for units, or more differences in how they're used. I meant only the best intentions to note something and try to improve upon something that was perhaps missing in EB1. :book:

While I don't share micko's general tone, I basically agree with his points. I don't think any of the recent posts (i.e., on page 4) of this thread have been insulting toward the EB team. I understand that as a team member, it's probably very easy to think of the mod sort of like your child, and as such be very protective of it and easily hurt by any criticism of it, but I don't think anyone here feels that the mod is seriously flawed or lacking in quality. It is, bar none, the greatest mod I've ever played, and I absolutely love it. And we're all eagerly anticipating EB2's release and enjoy talking about it. So no team member should have their feelings hurt by some fans discussing their ideas with each other. Not every thought expressed on these forums is necessarily directed at the team. If a few people want to debate how they think two units ought to compare, that shouldn't offend someone who actually is on the team. We're not trying to say, "Hey, EB guys, this is how you ought to have done it!" We're just tossing our ideas around, as much to each other as to anyone on the team. Don't take anybody's thoughts about the mod personally.

And as for the Bart Simpson picture, that was just funny. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micko

OK,I have read it all cearfuly and the only thing that I came up with that culd be "insolting" to the team was ......

---

When people criticise a part of the mod as being deficient and then give no good reason why, beyond their own preconceptions, it is pretty insulting.
If you must have a specific example: "I'm just seeking a system that is consistent and reliable" implies that the current one is neither and comes across as insulting (although I don't think SlickNicaG69 intended it to be), a similar thread currently going on the TWC forums is full of prime examples.

Your post on the other hand was clearly insulting, if you accuse people of being immature you might want to look up the word "oxymoron" before commenting again in that manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Wow, this has suddenly turned into a thread that I really don't want to read anymore. I think that some of what people are saying is coming close to stepping over the line from being critical to being insulting. Sometimes, I really really do not like reading these forums. Its so very easy to criticise, and its so very easy to judge and, in doing so, upset. It is a lot harder to work in a volunteer team to create something complex and, dare I say, it beautiful with dozens of conflicting characters all attempting to work with each other. There have been a plethora of these statting threads and they have invariably attacked and insulted the team - the condensed versions is "oh look, there are some apparent inconsistencies. EB must be a bunch of morons for doing that. i can do it much better, here is my work that i did and is so much better because i know why i did it". I find the tone of these posts hateful and their insinuations of the team hurtful.

For people who quite obviously get so much enjoyment from the mod, it seems that some of you have no sense of respect for those who brought it to you. The EB Team have invariably put their life on hold to work on this mod, I know I have, and to have the work of the fine people that I have known disparaged in such a fashion as I find in this thread and in others is not something that I wish to continue engaging in. Insult away, you fixers of things broken, I hope that your mods are as successfully balanced as you wish them to be. However, this is a suggestion thread for EBII, and as the statting system in M2TW cannot be assumed to work in any fashion close enough to that of RTW to make connections, I would suggest that you move discussion about EBI stats to the EBI forums.

Foot

---

Maybe you should just quit working on the mod if it's too much trouble? I don't read every post on these forums, but nevertheless I haven't seen a single post, which I'd count as insulting towards the creators of the mod. Most love it and simply worship you and the rest of the team. I bet every person here is ready name their children after you, and the only purpose of the criticism in this thread is the desire to make something they love even better.

PS. I love the mod and hope it will be finished. I also hope that I will one day have many little Feet. (insert smiley here)

Another Makedonian Preview?

You are such a tease, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micko

removed

---

I agree with certain points SlickNica brings forward here. I don't see the need to change the EB system though. I did find it a very interesting discussion (when on topic).

However I do understand the EB team feels attacked, since SlickNica's somewhat adds to his criticism that "the EB team clearly didn't think about this and that it would be better to introduce a system that is consistent and actually has been thought over."

This is what insults the team.

He is free to not agree that some body armours are less strong than the EB team thinks, or that carrying 15kg of armour for hours on the march and during battle does not influence your agility during all stages of battle, or that armour protecting parts which are not protected by anything else should have more weight in-game than good body armour.
That said he has put forth some very good points and the only things I don't agree with is that he implies that the EB team has done this at random and was inconsistent, and that he implies that the difference between a good armoured soldier and a naked barbarian used to fighting war, would mean that the barbarian didn't stand a chance. (or at least that the fight was more one sided than you would interpret from the EB stats).


There is however one thing that is rather insulting to Foot, to the EB team, to good taste and to everyone here, and that are the last two "contributions" of micko in this thread, who is clearly a tad immature to understand people study or have a job and creating a game like EB takes a lot of time, effort and organization - and frustration pretty much every time they come to the forums -, or to understand what history actually is (the interpretation of historical evidence).

So for anyone on the EB team this game is very serious, micko. It takes up hours and hours of their private life, working for free and for something we can and will enjoy.

And you're interpol reference isn't that bad, since every historian is more or less like a detective. And just like you can go to court with only assumptions pulled out of thin air, you must have some evidence to back up a historical claim.


To the EB team: Guys, remember that for every guy complaining or insulting, there are 20 fans not posting and enjoying and admiring your work, waiting patiently for EB II.

To SlickNica: I think everyone knows you did not want to insult the team, you just wished to start a discussion. Beware of implying that something is illogical just because you don't immediately see the logic behind it.



Sorry for any grammatical or spelling errors in this long patch of text.

This thread has an interesting question which is hard to answer without knowing fully the possibilities of the M2TW engine. Since the poor AI is hardcoded, I have already asked CA for the AI source code or ways to modify it, but I have a feeling that the universe will suffer heat death before they will share it.

Unfortunately I can't play RTW with anything else than with the Romani or when really stretching with Carthage or successor states. It just doesn't feel right to build an empire with a barbarian faction, which to my knowledge practically all collapsed after their charismatic and successful leader died (huns, mongols etc.). Important thing about Rome is that it lasted. So I would like to see a more challenging campaign for Romani in EBII. I tried adding money for the AI factions, but it didn't appear to have much impact.

The gameplay details and leader events of EB I were very nice. More storyline type events for leaders would be nice so that the missions would have more depth than just capture settlement or go to a Spartan school etc.

Eastern (Pontic, Parthian etc.) cavalry units must be better than western factions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scutum

This thread has an interesting question which is hard to answer without knowing fully the possibilities of the M2TW engine. Since the poor AI is hardcoded, I have already asked CA for the AI source code or ways to modify it, but I have a feeling that the universe will suffer heat death before they will share it.

Unfortunately I can't play RTW with anything else than with the Romani or when really stretching with Carthage or successor states. It just doesn't feel right to build an empire with a barbarian faction, which to my knowledge practically all collapsed after their charismatic and successful leader died (huns, mongols etc.). Important thing about Rome is that it lasted. So I would like to see a more challenging campaign for Romani in EBII. I tried adding money for the AI factions, but it didn't appear to have much impact.

The gameplay details and leader events of EB I were very nice. More storyline type events for leaders would be nice so that the missions would have more depth than just capture settlement or go to a Spartan school etc.

---

Actually the AI is quite modable in MTW2, that releases a big bunch of possbilities, and you can be sure that EB2 will use a lot of them. However, there are some facts that couldn't be broken by the community by now, so some of the big bugs of vanilla MTW2 that can be found in all of the mods will be found also in our mod if we can't get behind some behaviours.
Speaking about the Romans, did you read the preview about teh election system (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...php?t=120753)? I'm sure that this will bring new depth into the game and will assure a deep 'bond' between player and ingame characters.

XSamatan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pontic Knight

Eastern (Pontic, Parthian etc.) cavalry units must be better than western factions

---

They already are...

Numidians, Spaniards, Illurians, Tracians, Gaul/Belgians weren't rubbish either in that department, but the Eastern cavalry beats them all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scutum

Unfortunately I can't play RTW with anything else than with the Romani or when really stretching with Carthage or successor states. It just doesn't feel right to build an empire with a barbarian faction, which to my knowledge practically all collapsed after their charismatic and successful leader died (huns, mongols etc.). Important thing about Rome is that it lasted. So I would like to see a more challenging campaign for Romani in EBII. I tried adding money for the AI factions, but it didn't appear to have much impact.

The gameplay details and leader events of EB I were very nice. More storyline type events for leaders would be nice so that the missions would have more depth than just capture settlement or go to a Spartan school etc.

---

EB will of course never be Romano-centric, but seeing the Romani previews and the new government system and trait system with imperium, it'll be more of a challenge.

The sotrylines aren't a good idea IMO. I don't like "missions". I like to play at my own speed and following my own choices.