Europa Barbarorum II FAQ

I don't know much about modding, but in Stainless Steel (M2TW mod), rebel settlements will increase in units and buildings over time. That could just be the result of scripting, but I think they have an actual AI that allows them to improve.

One of the reasons for the Eleutheroi's inability to train new units is the fact that as the single largest faction in the game, their huge amount of units quickly causes them to go bankrupt. You can experiment in EB1 by setting the money script to give them copious amounts of money each turn, and they will sometimes start to recruit units. This is not recemmended, though, as it will severly unbalance the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithridates VI Eupator

One of the reasons for the Eleutheroi's inability to train new units is the fact that as the single largest faction in the game, their huge amount of units quickly causes them to go bankrupt. You can experiment in EB1 by setting the money script to give them copious amounts of money each turn, and they will sometimes start to recruit units. This is not recemmended, though, as it will severly unbalance the game.

---

In many my last games, I regularly gave the Eleutheroi 100,000 or more mnai a turn via the console (and often picked certain settlements to add extra units to their garrisons), and it didn't "severely unbalance the game". It slowed down the advance of the other AI factions, but still not enough for my tastes. There certainly wasn't an advance of the rebel settlements, since they only seem to defend what they have, not try to expand.

Let's wildly assume that the average settlement is defended by 8 units, and that the average upkeep per unit is 500. Which is probably on the conservative side, especially since cavalry units are quite expensive in upkeep. No Eleutheroi city in EB comes even close in terms of making 4000 Mnai / turn. The only way they could do that is second tier mines, in a minerally rich province. As far as I know, no settlement starts with those mines.

Add in all the rebel stacks, scripted defenders, pirates, etc., and it is obvious that the Eleutheroi are crippled in debt from the get-go. In order for them to develop, you would need to give them copious amounts of money, to the tune of 100 000 Mnai for every 20 settlements they own. At the start of the game that would be more than 600 000 Mnai / turn. I think someone actually experimented with giving them about 3000 Mnai / turn for every settlement they owned. That massively reduced expansion in Eleutheroi lands. Doing so would only require some minor changes to the script.

Back on topic:
I am not too worried about this particular issue in EB2. I am sure the first version won't have it solved - it is a matter of testing and tweaking. A blunt method such as "add_money" may work in general, but that may conflict with historical reality, and AI practice.

For EB, there were the AI faction progress threads, which also helped in identifying issues that lead / have led to unwanted AI behavior, such as the formation of Grey Death / Yellow Fever, factions expanding to unwanted areas (Hayasdan to the steppes, Pahlava up north, rather than to the south; Sweboz saying hello to the Romans in 250 BC). It is all in finding the right balance, and that requires serious testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V.T. Marvin

Thank you for your kind words and congratulations to your family, friend! :flowers:

I am father of two by now, which I wasn't back in 2007/8 when I was first playing EB1, and I can tell you that while there are some compatibility issues between family and EB, it is still manageable. :yes:

Now to your questions in the preceding post - I have not played vanilla M2TW at all and neither any other mod for it, because, exactly as you, I am simply not interested in it. Therefore I really do not know how well the engine does perform on these issues and I fully agree that these are among the top most important ones for a satisfying gameplay. This is how I joined the Team - waiting for EB2 long enough to finally decide to speed things up a little...

However, there are some good news - the diplomacy and AI behaviour is to a significant extent moddable. Currently, we do not have a Team member dedicated specifically to this aspect of the game. So, if you are willing to sacrifice some of your free time - and with kids you cannot have a good sleep anyway - you can help us on this front. Contributing to EB2 is a nice way to distract your thoughts between changing nappies or cooking dinner I assure you! :clown:

---

Another child on the way, too!

Hmmm, my modding in the EB1 days was rather limited to cosmetic changes (names of things, colours on the minimap, etc) and the odd bit of tinkering with descr_strat.txt, but I'll have a look at what's involved and assess whether it's something I could learn how to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

They respect them, yes.
Betrayals are still possible, but their standing needs to be lowish for it. Or if your ally shares all its borders with you, it will demand military access or declare war, but accept peace and alliance once again, provided you offer access...
Factions with high relations, will stick together...

I do not know, at a coding/engine level, whether they are aligned though...

---

Standing is a new concept in M2:TW isn't it? Might that offer some means of having more sensible diplomacy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

It depends on how many settlements the specific faction has left I think...
But it's very common for say a faction suffering defeats and with 2-3 (sometimes even more, especially if you don't border with them), to sue for peace and accepting most demands...

---

Doesn't sound much changed from RTW; there if you shared a border peace was basically impossible. Frankly it's the ones who share a border where being able to have meaningful diplomacy matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

It tends to stick to large armies yes and also sends decent stacks on naval invasions...

---

Hmmm, does this mean that like with BI's executable, anyone bordering on the same body of water treats you as a constant invasion target?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Not really sure what you mean here...
I've usually seen settlements with full stacks (in EBI). AI vacating settlements and running away is new to me...

---

I got it a lot in EB1, I'd send my single not-full-stack army into enemy territory, and sometimes have to spend some time chasing down their armies. Worse still, sometimes I'd bring them to battle, only for them to run away the moment the battle started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

In M2TW, there are mods with scripted garrisons, so even if the AI has left it with a unit, depending on the settlement's size it spawns a stack inside. So definitely a sub-mod possibility...

---

There might be something there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

That will depend on how the team scripts it...
The pushover/short time is because they don't recruit or retrain. But I think already with the alex.exe the retrained units. I don't know whether it's harcoded or not for the eleutheroi to be unable to recruit. Hopefully it will be just a matter of editing few entries, but ofc it must be kept in mind, that starting with so many provinces, they would overrun everybody else. So in the end, the best of compromises will have to do...

---

If EB1 is anything to go by, the danger isn't that the Eleutheroi might be too strong, but that they are fundamentally far too weak. In a normal game, all the independents are normally gone within 50 turns. That's far too fast, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Don't know, but I don't see why it couldn't be modded...

BTW all of this comes from my experience with M2TW's mods. I haven't played any vanilla title (except Shogun 2) for more than a few hrs...

---

I'll have to do some digging. I hope so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d'Arthez

Let's wildly assume that the average settlement is defended by 8 units, and that the average upkeep per unit is 500. Which is probably on the conservative side, especially since cavalry units are quite expensive in upkeep. No Eleutheroi city in EB comes even close in terms of making 4000 Mnai / turn. The only way they could do that is second tier mines, in a minerally rich province. As far as I know, no settlement starts with those mines.

Add in all the rebel stacks, scripted defenders, pirates, etc., and it is obvious that the Eleutheroi are crippled in debt from the get-go. In order for them to develop, you would need to give them copious amounts of money, to the tune of 100 000 Mnai for every 20 settlements they own. At the start of the game that would be more than 600 000 Mnai / turn. I think someone actually experimented with giving them about 3000 Mnai / turn for every settlement they owned. That massively reduced expansion in Eleutheroi lands. Doing so would only require some minor changes to the script.

Back on topic:
I am not too worried about this particular issue in EB2. I am sure the first version won't have it solved - it is a matter of testing and tweaking. A blunt method such as "add_money" may work in general, but that may conflict with historical reality, and AI practice.

For EB, there were the AI faction progress threads, which also helped in identifying issues that lead / have led to unwanted AI behavior, such as the formation of Grey Death / Yellow Fever, factions expanding to unwanted areas (Hayasdan to the steppes, Pahlava up north, rather than to the south; Sweboz saying hello to the Romans in 250 BC). It is all in finding the right balance, and that requires serious testing.

---

I'd completely forgotten about the money script, thanks for reminding me. It seems there was a more elegant solution than the one I was using, and I wasn't adding nearly enough money. Is there an equivalent in EB2?

As to historicity, I find the disappearance of everything independent, and emergence of 8-10 superpowers within 50 game years a lot less credible than a strong, vibrant Eleutheroi remaining until late into the game.

I did an awful lot of FD-augmentation in some of my game to prevent ahistorical expansion, it would be nice if the EB2 team had found some way of preventing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Standing is a new concept in M2:TW isn't it? Might that offer some means of having more sensible diplomacy?

---

Yes, there are 10 levels (iirc). It does help a lot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Doesn't sound much changed from RTW; there if you shared a border peace was basically impossible. Frankly it's the ones who share a border where being able to have meaningful diplomacy matters.

---

In M2TW they still accept peace, even if they border you. Ofc you would've to act pretty fast, to further your relations. Because depending on how bad the standings deteriorated, during the conflict, the AI would try to regain its status soon as it feels confident...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Hmmm, does this mean that like with BI's executable, anyone bordering on the same body of water treats you as a constant invasion target?

---

Absolutely not, only if the AI faction has low diplomatic standing...
In the diplomacy menu, it's also stated what a given faction wants from its relation with you (be that trading, peace, alliance or conquer)...

In regard to rebels, I think that it's possible to check their treasury in a script, right? Then you can ensure that they will have a surplus once every year or so. Most likely, you can even base this on in-game year or progress of other factions. Shouldn't be too hard, as long as there are proper triggers in place.

What will religion represent within the game? Except for a few coy references, the issue was never directly broached.

What's the hardcoded limit for the number of religions, for that matter?

It will represent the socio-political culture of the region, I guess. Some region are typically more tribal while others might be used to imperial administration, but eastern tribalism is of course still rather different from North European one. It represent whether the dominating faction's administration/governement/... is compatible with that of the local population. However obviously a faction's way of administration can change or evolve as well. The parthians might start out as tribal pastoralist but would historically end up as a true empire. Obviously we will allow a player to do this as well.

I believe the number was 7, but I might be mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

It will represent the socio-political culture of the region, I guess. Some region are typically more tribal while others might be used to imperial administration, but eastern tribalism is of course still rather different from North European one. It represent whether the dominating faction's administration/governement/... is compatible with that of the local population. However obviously a faction's way of administration can change or evolve as well. The parthians might start out as tribal pastoralist but would historically end up as a true empire. Obviously we will allow a player to do this as well.

I believe the number was 7, but I might be mistaken.

---

Wow, quite interesting! I realy like the concept!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

It will represent the socio-political culture of the region, I guess. Some region are typically more tribal while others might be used to imperial administration, but eastern tribalism is of course still rather different from North European one. It represent whether the dominating faction's administration/governement/... is compatible with that of the local population. However obviously a faction's way of administration can change or evolve as well. The parthians might start out as tribal pastoralist but would historically end up as a true empire. Obviously we will allow a player to do this as well.

---

Care to divulge all the cultures?

Quote:

---

I believe the number was 7, but I might be mistaken.

---

I experimented with religions and only managed up to five before some of the scrolls started behaving erratically. The game still registers the existence of a religion but doesn't always display it.

I've just added an entry in the FAQ about the usage of religions as Cultural affinities in EB2. They will be central in the development and evolution of the factions, from one socio-cultural group to another.

I think the FAQ needs some general updating too ;-)

I think the culture concept will be very, very interesting.

What's the difference between European Tribal and Forest Tribal? Does European Tribal represent the more urbanised socio-political structure of the Celts while Forest Tribal represents the thinly populated, semi-nomadic lifestyle of some Germanic tribes?

That would be my guess. Suebi and Lugii are probably the only forest tribal factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Somnorum

What's the difference between European Tribal and Forest Tribal? Does European Tribal represent the more urbanised socio-political structure of the Celts while Forest Tribal represents the thinly populated, semi-nomadic lifestyle of some Germanic tribes?

---

Where did you get this from/did you read about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

Where did you get this from/did you read about it?

---

The cultures in EB2? It's was added to the FAQ yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Somnorum

What's the difference between European Tribal and Forest Tribal? Does European Tribal represent the more urbanised socio-political structure of the Celts while Forest Tribal represents the thinly populated, semi-nomadic lifestyle of some Germanic tribes?

---

Basically, that's it.

Will there be camel-mounted units for the Arab factions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Wing

That would be my guess. Suebi and Lugii are probably the only forest tribal factions.

---

Lusotanians and maybe the Celtiberians too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Somnorum

Will there be camel-mounted units for the Arab factions?

---

Most probably not in the 1st release. The list of 200 units is already closed, although some units may yet "creep in" until release day.

BTW, the FAQ is reformed to be more organized.

Quote:

---

Q: Will you represent cultures? How and which ones?
A: We will use the religion mechanism to represent socio-political affinities, which are in competition in varying degrees in any given settlement. This competition may end up in civil unrest, if a culture gets closer in importance to the dominant one. Certain factions will need to evolve to another culture, which will certainly trigger unrest throughout the territory, and that transition will be harder if the player wants to do it too fast. The cultures are:
- Arid Nomadism
- Steppe Nomadism
- Eastern Imperial
- Eastern Tribal
- European Tribal
- Forest Tribal
- Western Mediterranean Polities
- Hellenistic Polities
- Indian Tribal

---

So, will Rome and Carthage be represented as Western Mediterranean Polities, being easier to assimilate each other than helenistic states?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LusitanianWolf

So, will Rome and Carthage be represented as Western Mediterranean Polities, being easier to assimilate each other than helenistic states?

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMRC

Correct.

---

Thank you!

Another question, this time more complex (maybe worth of a new thread instead):
One of the (few) things that annoyed me in EB1 was the imperative need to either start aggressive (conquering regions and going in huge debt for that) or disbanding a large part of the army when starting a campaign with many factions. I'm not exactly an hardcore roleplayer and I know the game is called TOTAL WAR for a reason, but lets take for example the Lusotannan, it would make sense to me to not expand at the start, to be able to keep a half decent army for defense and some raiding (instead of conquering) and still be able to improve infrastructures at starting province. I suppose that this would be possible with M2TW free upkeeps in cities, but the other mods I've played don't use this feature. How will EB2 stand in this matter?

Thank You.

We will use free upkeep under certain circumstances and political/governmental situations. In EB1 the availability of units was controlled through availability of money and that's why the Lusotannan had to disband some units early on, to get finantially stable. In EB2 we can control the unit availability directly, so it will be easier to have a more balanced start without the need to disband. We are trying to provide these slow-moving factions the means to get money, namely through raiding. We can achieve this through the use of PSFs, since they represent minor settlements that can be conquered (without siege battles) and return money while they're controlled, and through traits that give money while the general is in enemy territory.

Will raiding deprive the enemy of income, aside from blocked trade-routes and devastated farm tiles? Otherwise it just seems like a rehashed version of the forager trait.

Will we see a return of the recruitment viewer? Perhaps in a later release? I found it very useful in EBI. I also browsed through the files, and it seems closed source so the community can't update it independently.

Guys, has sth happened to your regular site? europabarbarorum.com is closed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stath's

Guys, has sth happened to your regular site? europabarbarorum.com is closed?

---

The website works fine for me. Maybe it was just a temporary glitch?

Yes, it works now:)