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

[Brennus]

I hope in EB2 the chevron flags on the battlefields won't be removed, so you can see which are the seasoned troops of your enemy. That was a quite useful feature in MTW2.

Yes that was a useful feature, but did armies in antiquity use different banners for different unit types (I have no idea).

[MisterFred]

I want EBII to continue to be the best Total War game ever made.... EBI still reigns supreme right now, and I have no doubt in the general awesomeness of everyone on the EBII team. Seriously, my respect and admiration for everyone on the team. That said,

Perhaps the number-one thing I'd like to see the EBII team keep or enhance is the occasional presence of aggressive eletheuroi armies. Like the one that goes after Ippone early. I think in one Sweboz game I had one attack my capitol in the first 10-15 turns (and take it, lolz). However these are created, I'd like more of them. Makes the eletheuroi seem less passive. It seems to me this could be scripted. I don't know how that works, but perhaps something like:

1) (every 4th spring-staggered between provinces so the invasions don't all happen at once) the script checks to see if (aggressive province X - places like Dalmatia or Galatia, but not perhaps places like Greseoallra [Massilia]) is controlled by the Eleutheori. If no, end script.

2) If yes, check to see if province x (the province most likely to be invaded from the aggressive province, say Illyria_Helenike for Dalmatia; Phygria or Bithynia for Galatia) is occupied by the player (or if necessary, any playable faction). If no, check next most likely province to be invaded (less-preferred or wealthy neighbors). If all no, end script.

3)If yes, spawn eletheuroi force allied with home province tribe at map point x [just within the borders of the target province] consisting of (list of units customized according to invader. Galatia, say, could send a general with Gallic Mercenary Light + 3 short swordsmen + a heavy spear unit. Dalmatia could send 2 Illyrian Thereuphori and 4 Coastal Levies with no general - whatever would seem best for gameplay/historical size of region's raids or invasions). Most importantly, whatever trait makes an eleutheroi band aggressive (willing to attack a city), this is assigned to the spawned army.

This seems like it could be a great way to simulate the vigor of eletheuroi-represented factions and the problems with barbarian raids on civilized borders Also, scripts could cause one of the Illyrian provinces to counter-invade if a player takes the other one. Maybe even a few years after, when the main army has moved on to Dacia :). Probably not possible - but if it could be scripted, the EB team would have the experts that know how!

The second biggest thing I'd like to see is a truly significant penalty for burnt fields, blackened ground, whatever you want to call the foraging or ravaging of the countryside by an invading army. As it is now, most of the countryside can be blackened and it barely even dents the farming revenue. (Although this sounds like one of those things that might be hard-coded.)

I want EBII to keep the excellent mercenary recruitment system (allowing for tweaks in AoR, spawn rates, etc). While in EBI I sometimes felt that there were too many mercenaries available at any one time, what mercenaries were available where was generally excellent.

I would like to see phalanxes be considerably less invulnerable to missile fire from the front. Taking 2-3 shield defense (depending on elite level of the unit) and adding it to armor or defensive skill (again, depending on the unit, but mostly armor) would vastly improve the realism of arrow fire doing moderate damage to phalanxes - rather than next to nothing. I realize that the shields are probably as strong as they are to enhance the general invulnerability of the phalanx frontally and the vulnerability of the back for MELEE combat, but I think the unreality of the effectiveness of missile fire is a real problem. I currently have no specific battles to reinforce that description, but I think one of the primary purposes of peltasts and psiloi in diadochi combat was to protect the phalanx from being disrupted by enemy missiles - not for the phalanx to be sent forth to absorb the foolish AI's javelins.

I would like to see elephants be more powerful and fewer in number. Currently on huge settings, the "historic" size of an infantry unit is 10-20 times larger than the in-game unit size... except for elephant units, which are more like 2-1. I also think their base melee attack, armor, maybe hit points (maybe just more armor again) should be upped considerably, so that they are dangerous even if slowed. I don't think that fewer, more badass elephants would be unrealistic (especially Indian elephants). I think Bush elephants should probably be removed from the game, unless historians more expert than I have a solid source for their actual use in combat. It would also be nice to see them better at adopting a chariot-like tendency to continously charge and move through the enemy lies - making them more useful for a frontal attack.

I would like to see the Mauryan empire represented as a faction, rather than the independent cites along the Indus + independent Kophen, Alexandropolis, and Pura. I don't think the map needs to be extended to do so. I think the three Indus provinces + the 3 greek or eastern-culture cities west of the Indus region would do a fine job representing the resources the empire could bring to bear on that front. And perhaps a capital in the southern most Indus province+culture and religion problems (and maybe diplomatic preferences in favor of Baktria/AS?) should keep the AI from expanding too much. I realize, however, there are limited faction slots available and the lack of a Mauryan push west post-305BC is an issue, as is the collapse late in the EB time frame.

Similar preferences for a Nubian faction based out of Meroe.

I would like to see the M2TW trade revenue system make more sense - best of luck with that :).

Once again, my thanks to the team.

[Mediolanicus]

Some comments:

- Rebel incursions would have to be random, not every 4 years or so.
- All in all, this would add an enourmous amount of scripting to the game.
- Burned fields looks hard coded, although I too am in favour of more economic repercussions of an invading army.
- Mercenaries were abundant in the classical world, so I imagine the system will only be improved and perhaps even expanded.
- The problem with phalanxes in EB was their hard-coded bonus. I don't know whether M2TW has such a bonus. In any case, hitting them up front with missiles was a waste of missiles anyway. And attacking them from the sides or rear with missiles is very deadly, so you do need peltastai and psiloi to make sure fast, light skirmishers don't get around the flanks or rear of the phalanx and practise hit and run tactics to disrupt your formation (game and reality are rather similar here IMO)
- The continuous charge of chariots and elephants is something you have to micro-manage. If you don't do that they'll get caught in melee and become rather vunarable.
- Faction slots is not so much the problem. Culture slots and the fact that their most important provinces are off the map, are. You could argue that those 3 cities are enough for a Western Mauryan front, but you cannot escape the fact that that would be a very arcady representation (and thus something that absolutely doesn't belong in EB). Strong (defensive) rebels and provinces with a unique character (like in EB I) are the best solution here. The same goes for Meroe.
- Trading system, as long as it isn't hard coded.

[MisterFred]

It would be an enormous amount of scripting, but most of it (I assume) would be copy-paste with a change in years. I should reiterate that I don't have modding skills, so if what I suggest seems ridiculously unreasonable - its because they're just concepts bouncing around my head without serious effort or thought behind them.

As for the constant motion of chariots and elephants - it isn't something you have to manage, in some situations. For instance, charge in chariots against a unit of Akontistai and watch them do their wacky dance forever. They may actually be "pursuing" rather than charging, but the formation disruption if not the mass death is continuous. I'm assuming they only manage against light troops because of a mass-ratio that's necessary for that kind of thing. But if it that kind of thing could be encouraged without getting outlandish effects otherwise, it seems beneficial.

I agree that having 1/4 the Mauryan empire and not the rest is a bit arcady, but so is being able to conquer bits of the Mauryan Empire piecemeal without a collective response. If Eleutheroi counter-invasion scripts are possible, this could be an excellent solution to the Mauryan problem.

Nubian Meroe's problem as a faction doesn't seem to be much of a parts of the empire off the map problem to me. I'm not an expert, but I doubt their control over settled territory extended south of the Sudd for any lengthy period of time. The bigger problems with Meroe seem to be they didn't (successfully) expand all that much in area during EB's time frame, and that I'm guessing seems little basis for an expansion of their unit roster to the level most other factions enjoy (the most I could picture off the top of my head is ~4 missile types ~3 infantry types ~2 cavalry types, 1 elephant type). None of which keep me from thinking they'd be fun.

[Mediolanicus]

And like I said, the biggest problem with Maurya and Meroe is that they would require a new culture slot, each!

[MisterFred]

Not necessarily. Meroe would probably have to be barbarian or eastern, the Maurya eastern, or even roman if you want to focus more on gameplay than labels.

But wait you say! That's ridiculous! The Nubians shared no common culture with the Arverni, the Maurya are obviously a different culture than Pontos...

Well yes, but there's a clear EBI precedent for far-flung factions sharing culture because its convenient and unlikely they'll meet each other on the game map. Remember both Carthage and the Saba were of "Semitic" culture, based only on the thinnest of possible ethnic ties, ignoring differences in economy, government, language, religion, military tactics, and probably EB-timeframe ethnicity. To say nothing about the "Semitic" buildings that the eletheuroi in North Africa had. Meroe sharing whatever culture the Numidians get is no more far-fetched than the Casse, Lusotann, and Getai all sharing the same culture label.

I enjoy the historical focus of EB more than most. But just like in EBI, fudges will have to be made for the greater accuracy of the whole mod. Luckily, I get the sense that those more dedicated and knowledgeable than I are on the job. [Edit - And I'm also assuming the faction list is already set.]

BTW, I enjoyed Never near Argos, thanks.

[Foot]

Meroe were ethiopians (black africans). We can't very well portray them as North African in the family tree portraits now, can we? Meroe are out, and so is the Empire of Maurya. They will have a presence on the map, but that is best represented by Eleutheroi given the limitations that we face. Culture slots are not divvied up according to the ethnicity of a faction, but whether it is possible to represent that faction in that fashion. The family portraits for the carthaginians could be used again for Saba, and wouldn't look to inappropriate. The fact that they both spoke semetic languages was neither here nor there.

Foot

[MisterFred]

I'm a little shocked I didn't realize family tree portraits were tied to culture slot. Heh, learn something new every day.

[Mediolanicus]

BTW, I enjoyed Never near Argos, thanks.

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for reading.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for reading.

Yeah, it was great! I read it on TWC. (I'm Imperial Eagle there)

[miguelalmas]

Hey guys... Have no idea if this is hard to modify or not but i'd like an option to allow my troops to give ground while fighting... kind on what Hannibal did at Cannae... This would allow a much greater control over the battle and allow for a player to either make risky but potencially devastating blows and also to try and disengage with the enemy in an orderly manner without giving a huge hit on morale by having the troops turn their backs on the enemy... I supose this option should come with penalties, maybe to morale and damage dealing...

Apart from frequent crashes i think EB1 is a brilliant game and would like to congratulate all at the modding team for their brilliant work.

[bobbin]

Sadly we can't mod the game in that way.

[antisocialmunky]

Its called gaurd mode in RTW. I think it was somewhat removed in M2TW.

I want not-ridiculous all terrain phalanxes that can spin around and do 180 degree flips.

[bobbin]

Its called gaurd mode in RTW. I think it was somewhat removed in M2TW.

That just ensures your troops stay in formation (and its still in M2TW), what he was asking for was an orderly withdrawal, which is not possible.

I want not-ridiculous all terrain phalanxes that can spin around and do 180 degree flips.

No longer a problem.

[antisocialmunky]

Wasn't miguel talking about back pedalling? Well guardmode units slowly move backwards since they don't counter push when engaged as opposed to a non-guard unit which expands out and pushes.

[Ludens]

Wasn't miguel talking about back pedalling? Well guardmode units slowly move backwards since they don't counter push when engaged as opposed to a non-guard unit which expands out and pushes.

They aren't really retreating, though, merely being pushed back.

BTW, welcome to the .Org, miguelalmas.

[Moros]

Shift + right click behind your own line?

[antisocialmunky]

Throw in reserves, set guard mode on your original troops so they ignore the bad guys, and then them to run back?

[vartan]

Shift + right click behind your own line?

I believe Alt + Right-Click is what you mean, because Alt makes them run back, and reform facing the same direction they did originally.

[athanaric]

I'd like somewhat tweaked victory conditions for some factions. For example in EB I, those for Saba were more Islamic than actually related to ancient Sabaean politics. Perhaps there could be more subtle goals in some places instead of "conquer the following provinces" or "squash factions x, y, and z".
Hopefully the recruitment of sedentary auxiliaries for nomadic factions will also be facilitated. In EB I you have to rely on exploits to properly play the Sauromatae.

[mmiki]

Since it's my first post, I'd like to thank the EB team for a wonderful mod. I've been playing it on and off for years now and I'm really excited about all the great work you're doing on EB II. So keep up the good work and thank you! :)

Back to topic, the short list of things that bothered me in EB:

1) "Frighten nearby infantry" on every naked unit. The effect is just too powerful and the AI just doesn't know how to handle such units. Also, I'm not quite convinced that fighting a bunch of naked guys should be any scarier than fighting an elite phalanx.

2) "Worshiper of ..." trait. It just leads to unnecessary micromanagement. Also it always felt gamey to me - how would being a worshiper of Athena make it easier to rule over Athens?

3) AI historical expansion. But I suppose that there's not much that can be done in this regard.

[Moros]

I'd like somewhat tweaked victory conditions for some factions. For example in EB I, those for Saba were more Islamic than actually related to ancient Sabaean politics.

So what do you suggest?

[MisterFred]

The victory conditions made sense for Saba when I played them. Sure they're similar to Islamic conquests - that is the only model for conquerers swarming out of Arabia. Plus they were hard, which was great.

I mean, if you want historical victory conditions, it could be hold the four cities in the southwest corner of Arabia + Ubar, then build up a treasury of 500,000 gold, but that wouldn't be much fun, would it? :)

[Southern Rider]

Hey folks!

I'm new to the forum, so I don't really know if this has been discussed before, so sorry if it was. I had the impression that CTD is more common when defending or assaulting cities, especially some particular ones (Massalia, for me). That is annoying especially when you are defending in a situation that you know there's a possibility to win if you play the battle, but you will certainly lose if you autoresolve it. But what I more want to see fixed, is the "uncapturable towns", like Bostra, or some numidian cities in Africa... it is almost impossible to keep those towns!!! If you don't keep a full stack and a very good governor inside them, they will repeteadly rebel, no matter how many public order buildings there are, what type of government, an 8 unit garrison, a good governor and repeated slaughters until the population reaches 400 (the minimal)... I know that this unrest represents cultural differences, but is there SUCH a difference, historically speaking? And, how can a town with 400 people boost repeatedly stacks of 1200 gold-chevroned units? (I counted at least three, one after another, in my Baktria campaign, they really screwed with me, since that factory of Sabaean Armies in the middle of my territories gave time to the Seleukids to regroup against me and to the Ptolemies to turn against me, and my income go severly down with huge garrissons... ¬¬)

Besides this, the mode is great in every aspect, these are just minor details!
Sorry for the huge text, or if I have mentioned things already discussed!!

PS: Can barely wait to see Hoplitai Massaliotai in EB2!!!!!!!!!!!

[MisterFred]

Try type 4 governments and client rulers. Works wonders on cities far from your capitol. Also, destroying buildings that don't share your cultures. Trader (Semitic) is not as good as Trader if you're playing Baktria.

[vartan]

Try type 4 governments and client rulers. Works wonders on cities far from your capitol. Also, destroying buildings that don't share your cultures. Trader (Semitic) is not as good as Trader if you're playing Baktria.

Don't client rulers cost more upkeep than the money they bring in?

[Captain Jazzy]

I tend to find that even client rulers who at first seem to be useless with dull/uncharasmatic ect very quickly gain massive ammounts of influence and management. Meaning I can keep hold of the steppe provinces easily and actualy make some money from them.

[Rahl]

Depends on the city and the generals bodyguards. The celtic ones are really cheap if compared to others what makes celtic lesser kings a little bit overpowered since they will bring in their upkeep really easy. But even if you must rely on the expensive greek ones you will often make profit. Especially when the client ruler gets some good traits he will allow you to reduce the garrison significantly and maybe even raise taxes.

[fightermedic]

@mmiki
3) there is.. in med2 the ai can be guided very well by setting certain provinces as victory conditions as far as i experienced it

one of the things i'd like to see in eb2 are generals with VERY few units (talking about 8-10 on huge)
super-champion units that refresh every turn always annoy me
besides.. faction heir and leader would still get enough of a bodyguard unit that way and all other generals would be.. well generals not "i kill everything and refresh next turn" killers
you can still guard your general if you want.. but you would have to recruit units for it!
the only problem i can see is the ai charging blind with an unit of 8 :D
but i guess ai should be tweak to keep generals at the back anyway

[HFox]

Not necessarily fixed but does:

Keeping order depend on experience. That is; as a unit moves, the more it moves it has a chnace to become disordered based on the units experience
A units ability to and speed of reform(ing) once it has become disordered depends on its experience