General EB2 Suggestions

[MRY6]

Telling you guys, that Augustus looks like he's wearing playdoh :). If that's how they really painted their sculptures, then wow ive lost some of the great respect i had for their artistry.

[Augustus Ceasar]

[Bootsiuv]

Telling you guys, that Augustus looks like he's wearing playdoh :). If that's how they really painted their sculptures, then wow ive lost some of the great respect i had for their artistry.

I don't understand why exactly. Most sculptures and works of art in the ancient world utilized a lot of color, just as today. It is thought that most, if not all, of the sandy gold monuments (barring the pyramids, although they were covered in white limestone, or marble, or something which escapes my memory right now) which are so iconic of ancient egypt were highly colorized, almost loud in their tones.

People like color.

[Sir Edward]

I remember hearing from one of my proffesors that the exterior of the parthenon was likely painted in hues of red, white, and blue.

However back on the topic of suggestions. Could you use the send_character_off_map command for the olympic script to show the individual is outside of your control for that season?

[Augustus Ceasar]

[CaesarAugustus]

The Parthenon looks a lot better with a bit of colour added, I must say..... Why not "paint" large temples and other monument appearing on the battle amp in EB2, if possible?

[Charge]

Hmm. I have played yesterday some turns, and already can say that the main trouble is your strange text (Pahlava, As'Sab'yn wal'Jau, Lvcivs, etc). Roman voice also was rather disappointed (I dont say whether it historical or not, but it is more stupid even than vanilla). This "extra-realism" I think, is a over-indulgence... EB will be much more popular without this, just because of it quality. TW isnt played only by historians

[Foot]

Hmm. I have played yesterday some turns, and already can say that the main trouble is your strange text (Pahlava, As'Sab'yn wal'Jau, Lvcivs, etc). Roman voice also was rather disappointed (I dont say whether it historical or not, but it is more stupid even than vanilla). This "extra-realism" I think, is a over-indulgence... EB will be much more popular without this, just because of it quality. TW isnt played only by historians

You'd be better off elsewhere then. The rest of us don't agree.

EDIT: The strange text, only appears for names and specific nouns, not everywhere. It does take some getting use to, but why must we pander to those who are just not willing to get into the spirit of the thing. I like the Roman voice and so do many other people, and the team members who made it put a lot of time into doing it.

It is not an over-indulgence on our part to place importance on education in a game. Nor does it detract from the game itself. If it did, we wouldn't have forums that are more busy than any other part of the .org.

Foot

[Kahju]

Roman voice also was rather disappointed (I dont say whether it historical or not, but it is more stupid even than vanilla).

You seriously prefer Vanilla's 15 years old American kid screaming "The day is ours" like he had sharp object inside his rectum? EB's voices sound like something from an ancient battlefield, not like something from a bad Hollywood sword and sandals movie. Of course, some people prefer sword and sandals stuff, but EB might not be the mod for them.

[Charge]

Kahju

You seriously prefer Vanilla's 15 years old American kid screaming "The day is ours" like he had sharp object inside his rectum? EB's voices sound like something from an ancient battlefield, not like something from a bad Hollywood sword and sandals movie. Of course, some people prefer sword and sandals stuff, but EB might not be the mod for them.

I dont like vanilla voice (except prebattle speech, which not removed ), but EB voice werent so serios as it was in life. It is like vanilla "funny" style, just with another accent. Kind of that I 've heard sometime ago in legion arena( really stupid). Maybe I wrong. Today will play more... Interested what barbarian speech you made.

Foot

You'd be better off elsewhere then. The rest of us don't agree.

Well most RTW players arent agree with YOU.
This is style of your mod, which you won't change...
Thats why I read somewhere : "RTR - best RTW mod ever made". RTR! main part which is good eye-looking units... So..there no mod №1 yet. If you made it a bit less educated, it will be EB, but...

The strange text, only appears for names and specific nouns, not everywhere. It does take some getting use to, but why must we pander to those who are just not willing to get into the spirit of the thing.

Do you know what is "Mechnik" ? No? And I absolutely don't know what is Qarthadastim, unless have look on a map. And I'm not newbie in history... Really interest spirit when you don't know with whom you are fighting in battle! But biography is a really good thing.

Big post...

[Foot]

Well most RTW players arent agree with YOU.
This is style of your mod, which you won't change...
Thats why I read somewhere : "RTR - best RTW mod ever made". RTR! main part which is good eye-looking units... So..there no mod №1 yet. If you made it a bit less educated, it will be EB, but...

Really, have you made a poll of RTW players? I quite frankly we don't care whether they agree or not. If we wanted to make money we would do a CA, we are doing it for the love of the era, for the love of history and so we can make a game we want to play.

I imagine that there are many players of both mods who would say EB was the better mod. Thats because we have something they are looking for. Some people prefer RTR because RTR has something they were looking for. We cater to different audiences (though there is some cross-over) and this isn't a bad thing.

Do you know what is "Mechnik" ? No? And I absolutely don't know what is Qarthadastim, unless have look on a map. And I'm not newbie in history... Really interest spirit when you don't know with whom you are fighting in battle! But biography is a really good thing.

Thats why we learn. Our inquisitive nature wants to find out more. If we had just had Carthage as the faction name, would you have learnt anything new? No. As I've said before, we want this game to be educational as well as fun. I think we've succeeded.

Foot

[Charge]

Are you planning use EB directory instead of main Data? In this case I will make my mod in it! You can play a very educating original EB, and as well mine more friendly, reworked SH. Mega mix!

[Krusader]

Hmm. I have played yesterday some turns, and already can say that the main trouble is your strange text (Pahlava, As'Sab'yn wal'Jau, Lvcivs, etc). Roman voice also was rather disappointed (I dont say whether it historical or not, but it is more stupid even than vanilla). This "extra-realism" I think, is a over-indulgence... EB will be much more popular without this, just because of it quality. TW isnt played only by historians

It is true TW isnt played only by historians. So those who don't like history-focused mods play something else.
EB is made for those who like a focus on history, and when all is debated, EB is basically what we inside EB wants RTW to really be. Our goal isn't to please all audiences, it is to try and please those who want historical realism in their mod and something we try within the limits of the RTW engine imposed on us.

[abou]

Well most RTW players arent agree with YOU.

That's fine. Personally, I don't think anyone on the team cares. This modification is foremost for us. If one person doesn't like the fact that we use different naming conventions we could care less. EB: No Compromises.

If you want to enjoy and play the mod, that's great. If you don't, we won't shed a tear.

[Bellum]

Well most RTW players arent agree with YOU.

It's no popularity contest. Historical accuracy, if I'm not mistaken, is the primary goal of EB. Would it not be detrimental to that goal if they did something completely ahistorical? I'm a RTW player, and I happen to love EB.

[Zaknafien]

I think its quite silly of you to suggest that RTR is "No 1 mod" for RTW without any basis to support that whatseover.

But, as my colleagues have said so succintly, we don't paticularly care who likes EB, we make it the way it is because WE like it, not for anyone else.

[HistoryProf]

I'd like to see impassible battlemap trees. Like sections that you can't enter because they are too dense. Many battles sites were chosen to use thick forests to prevent flanking.

The Iceni found that out the hard way.

[HistoryProf]

Oh, after having read the rest of the thread, I can see it took a turn for the worse.

It's my favorite mod, and I've played more than a few. My favorite thing is that it reminds me of MTWI: the dark ambiance is compelling. I wouldn't mind a bit more variety of music. I've even thought of looking for a music mod, but haven't had the time yet.

I can't think of anything (that the dev team is responsible for) I really don't like: it's a great work. EB2 is bound to be even better.

[Charge]

I think its quite silly of you to suggest that RTR is "No 1 mod" for RTW without any basis to support that whatseover.

I mean exactly that many peoples think RTR is №1 mod. But not I !

Also, as m2 engine allows many reforms as events, you must include all units which aren't in EB1 but were in real life (You know what I mean).

[Foot]

I mean exactly that many peoples think RTR is №1 mod. But not I !

Also, as m2 engine allows many reforms as events, you must include all units which aren't in EB1 but were in real life (You know what I mean).

We are still constrained by the hardcoded maximum unit limit which still stands at 500 in MTW2. Seeing as we will 10 new factions in EB2, and we have hit about 460 units for EB1, I don't see how we can include too many more units that do not focus on those new factions. So no, I don't know what you mean.

Foot

[Charge]

I mean proper Imperial Cohort with LS instead of current, which was only in the beginning.

[Krusader]

I mean proper Imperial Cohort with LS instead of current, which was only in the beginning.

Lorica Segmentata?? LS popped up after 14 AD meaning AFTER EB1's timeperiod. Why include units that weren't historically in 14 AD?

From the EB1 FAQ:

Q: Where is the Lorica Segmentata?
A: Lorica Segmentata wasn't used until several years in AD. This places Lorica Segmentata out of the EB time frame and to include it would be ahistorical.

[Charge]

So why EB period ends in 14 AD?
BTW, marian reforms happens around 209 BC?

[Foot]

So why EB period ends in 14 AD?
BTW, marian reforms happens around 209 BC?

That was the death of Augustus. Its an arbitrary date we know, but that is how it is. We wouldn't want to go much further as limits on the numbers of units we can have would mean that we would have to under-represent the first hundred years to better represent the last hundred years.

No the Marian Reforms in EB happen according to a number of conditions. Reading the EB FAQ has all the details.

Foot

[Ludens]

Lorica Segmentata?? LS popped up after 14 AD meaning AFTER EB1's timeperiod. Why include units that weren't historically in 14 AD?

Not true, strictly speaking. There are a couple of LS finds that predate the death of Augustus. However, the point still remains that it didn't come into widespread use until after his death, and it's not like the Romans lack units, now is it?

[Ludens]

Marian reforms surely not in 10* BC, much earlier. So LS must be too!

I think you are confusing a couple of things, because it wasn't Marius who introduced the Lorica Segmentata. As far as we know, the first LS appeared under Augustus, but it wouldn't become common until later emperors. Hence it won't be in EB.

[Foot]

Marian reforms surely not in 10* BC, much earlier. So LS must be too!

Why did you just repeat yourself?

Marius did not introduce the LS. The Marian Reforms were (roughly) 107BC, so yes they did happen then. LS was a much later development of armour that didn't see widespread usage till after our end date.

Foot

[Ludens]

Marian reforms surely not in 10* BC, much earlier. So LS must be too!

...

I think you are confusing a couple of things, because it wasn't Marius who introduced the Lorica Segmentata. As far as we know, the first LS appeared under Augustus, but it wouldn't become common until later emperors. Hence it won't be in EB.

[Charge]

Marian reforms happens surely not in 105 BC. So LS must be...

[Foot]

Marian reforms happens surely not in 105 BC. So LS must be...

Charge, if you continue as you are going, I imagine that there will be consequences. Stop spamming this thread. We (myself and Ludens) have answered your question, there is no need to ask the same question over and over.

Foot