New features I want EBII to provide

[bobbin]

Hello. I would like to see some things in EBII. I will list them followingly:

1. In the chart where you see the graphs of the factions, the vertical axis grows as big as it has in order to accomodate the faction with the highest score. For example, if Pontus has a treasury of 100000000 and all the other factions are poor, the graph will dwarf the lines of the other factions, and they will all be squeezed together. That makes sence because the graph also includes Pontus. But even if you unclick pontus and exlude it from the graph, the graph remains unchanged. You still cannot see the situation of the other factions, their liens are still pressed down all togetehr at the bottom of the graph. So, mayme it is possible to make the graphs represent the relative and not the absolute values? Meaning only the factions chosen to be included in the graph should be calculated. I hope what I wanted to say was clear, i am not very sure i communicated what i had in mind clearly....

2. It would be nice to see actual hoplite formations. Tight together, and each man covering his left comrade with his shield. Also packed together depth-wise, since the ones in the back were pushing their front one forward with their hoplon. The way they fight in EB is like they are fighting individually....

That was what i could think now my friends!

1. That is not something we can change, it's a hardcoded aspect of the game.

2. Hoplites get the shieldwall ability which means they will fight in the proper way.

And something more.. In EB II it will be very nice that the different soldiers will have a lot of options for clothing and face. So not all of the soldier in a unit will look the same. Great work:) I do not know if it is possible, but can their body types also be a bit different? Like, have more than one body type. So not all of them are similarly tall and build. Althought i have no idea abt the technical part, i guess that it is not that possible, since the skins get wrapped around the models? so more than one models will make the skins not fit correcly? Anyways, i thought to post it... :)

Not possible, the model parts have to be aligned perfectly with each other, so if you were to make a taller body the heads would still appear in the position for the shorter bodies, ie somewhere in the taller ones chest. There are also animation problems too, as there can only be 1 skeleton per unit model.

[kaptainplanet]

Thank you for your time bobbin

[antisocialmunky]

You can probably make a slightly fatter Roman Equite body if you really wanted to. Width is easier to do than height. After all, I don't think every one had the same level of physical fitness especially if you are a rich guy who can sit on a horse all day.

Also, will Cilician Pirates get eye patches?

[fomalhaut]

will the units have sweet details like the Ropes and climbing spikes tied around the Aragonians (?)

[Cute Wolf]

Princess...

[antisocialmunky]

You can't inbreed so they would be ahistorical for Ptoly.

[khawar ramzan]

I have played rtw, mtw2, etw, ntw(their mods). There are some suggestions I think would greatly helpful and effective for historical gameplay of EB2:-

(1)- When I was playing EB1.1 I saw that Romani faction(going under AI), which historically conquerd gallic provinces including much around medeterrarian sea, was destroyed by both gallic factions. this is a great historical inaccuracy. there should be some faction power parameters or programming which make factions(under AI)to go according to history.

(2)- Hoplites should be able to form some testudo like(made by roman legions) formation, as we saw in movie troy made by acklies(Braud Pit).

(3)- There should be weather fatigue(in winters) and area fatigue(for examples, for romans in far german nd british territories nd far eastern deserts. similarly for greeks in far scythian areas and indian territories). This fatigue factor is extremely necessary to make gameplay historically accurate.
Thanks

[TheLastDays]

I have played rtw, mtw2, etw, ntw(their mods). There are some suggestions I think would greatly helpful and effective for historical gameplay of EB2:-

(1)- When I was playing EB1.1 I saw that Romani faction(going under AI), which historically conquerd gallic provinces including much around medeterrarian sea, was destroyed by both gallic factions. this is a great historical inaccuracy. there should be some faction power parameters or programming which make factions(under AI)to go according to history.

As far as I know it always plays out differently and that's part of the fun. Of course there are some things that happen most of the time but balancing the AI and esp. autocalculated battles, which the AI uses all the time, is harder than balancing the units just for battles against the player. That's one reason (or at least it's widely believed to be a reason) for the Lusotannan to rampage all over Europe at some point in the game.
As for Rome losing to the Gauls, that's a rather rare sight, I usually see them pwning the Aedui early and the Arverni never grow very big. It's rather Carthage and later the Lusos who bring about the downfall of Rome.

That said, M2TW offers better possibilities to mod the AI so we might see improvement in that area

(2)- Hoplites should be able to form some testudo like(made by roman legions) formation, as we saw in movie troy made by acklies(Braud Pit).

Give a good reason why they should. Hint: Don't say "because they did in the movie".

(3)- There should be weather fatigue(in winters) and area fatigue(for examples, for romans in far german nd british territories nd far eastern deserts. similarly for greeks in far scythian areas and indian territories). This fatigue factor is extremely necessary to make gameplay historically accurate.

On the campaign map this was implemented as movement penalties in EB 1 and worked rather well imo. I'm not sure it can be implemented on the battlefield, which is probably what you're talking about.

[Ca Putt]

welcome to the forums.

1) EB is not history on rails, if all things happened the same they did in history the game would be boring and predictable. The Game is only Historical in year 272 the further you progress the more likely faction progression stays historical.
+As Oh! TheLastDays! already pointed out it happens once in a blue moon that the gauls actually beat anyone up. Normally the Romans conquer gaul and get stuck in germania. Far more A-historical is the aforementioned Lusotani expansion who in most cases sweep across all of europe.

2) they get shieldwall, that is as close as the engine gets to the Hoplite Phalanx. Testudo would be silly.

3) if it's possible they WILL implement it.

[bobbin]

I have played rtw, mtw2, etw, ntw(their mods). There are some suggestions I think would greatly helpful and effective for historical gameplay of EB2:-

(1)- When I was playing EB1.1 I saw that Romani faction(going under AI), which historically conquerd gallic provinces including much around medeterrarian sea, was destroyed by both gallic factions. this is a great historical inaccuracy. there should be some faction power parameters or programming which make factions(under AI)to go according to history.

(2)- Hoplites should be able to form some testudo like(made by roman legions) formation, as we saw in movie troy made by acklies(Braud Pit).

(3)- There should be weather fatigue(in winters) and area fatigue(for examples, for romans in far german nd british territories nd far eastern deserts. similarly for greeks in far scythian areas and indian territories). This fatigue factor is extremely necessary to make gameplay historically accurate.
Thanks

1) As the previous posters have said we only try to set up an accurate situation for the start date (272BCE), after that the only things we stick to history with are events that happen off the map (Yuezhi invasion etc) and things that would have happened no matter what (like the increasing adoption of heavy armour). We might make the AI favour certain expansion routes that they were historically interested in to prevent illogical expansion (like the Romans shooting off towards the Baltics without touching Sicily) but it would never be something as strict as to force expansion to only happen as it did in history.

2) We want our units to be as historically accurate as possible, so we certainly would not use a film like Troy as a basis for anything in the mod.

3) Weather related fatigue has been there since EB, this varies from unit to unit and is based on where they comes from in the map and their armament, a Sabaean archer won't tired as quickly in hot regions but will suffer in cold ones. Also certain units get bonuses for different terrains, ie German or Celtic units generally perform better in forests than the Greeks or Romans. That area fatigue idea is not realistic though, a Roman soldier would not become more tired just because he was in Germany.

[FinnishedBarbarian]

Besides the campaign AI on EB1 has bigger problems than gauls owning romani once in a life time, for example haysdan forging steppe empire is a lot more ahistorical.

[vartan]

I am confused. The EB team wants to make the game such that it begins in a historically accurate situation. After this, the player rewrites history (alongside the AI). But we also want the AI to create the extents of controlled territory that the factions historically did? A contradiction it seems. Is it that only the player should have a license to rewrite history, and not the AI? or is it something else?

[FinnishedBarbarian]

If those steppe territories were in haysdans victory conditions it would be okay. Although that would seem strange, really who wants to own hundreds of thousands square miles empty landscape?

[Arjos]

who wants to own hundreds of thousands square miles empty landscape?

Livestock breeders, especially horses...

[bobbin]

I am confused. The EB team wants to make the game such that it begins in a historically accurate situation. After this, the player rewrites history (alongside the AI). But we also want the AI to create the extents of controlled territory that the factions historically did? A contradiction it seems. Is it that only the player should have a license to rewrite history, and not the AI? or is it something else?

Not sure if you are replying to my comment but I wasn't saying that we would force the AI to try and control the territory they did historically, just that their avenues of expansion should be realistic. For example, we could make the Hayasdan prefer to expand into Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Crimea. These would be realistic movements, not because they are historical but because they are logical given the reality on the ground at the time. Having them head north into the Russian steppe is not a realistic move and certainly isn't logical, and so would be discouraged (but not forbidden). I should point out that this kind of approach is already found in the original EB, for example the central European megastacks or the fact that there are no roads connecting the Causasus regions with the steppe.

[Drunk Clown]

Some people want re-enactment; some want a "what if" situation.

And some people misunderstand when said: "We aim to be as historical as possible".

Luckily it's a "what if" mod.

[Oddnerd]

I like that history doesn't just repeat itself endlessly - that is what makes it fun. I can, however, appreciate the AI having history-specific behaviour patterns (ex - Romans don't expand into gaul at the same time every game, but have a general predisposition to doing it at some point, while tending to make expansion into German territory as a secondary objective) Anything more than encoded tendencies and I think you would be ruining the game.

[FinnishedBarbarian]

Livestock breeders, especially horses...

Yup and huge territory is also an military asset (logistic difficulties for the invader), but neither of them wouldn't really be a huge benefit to ancient armenians who were not nomads (well atleast not all of them), so why would they be intrested to start forging a empire by taking lands which are difficult to control/protect and are not economically profitable?

Main goal of AI factions should essentially be conquering territories which benefit them economically and boost their recruitment abilities, romans going for the baltic or carthiginians conquering towns in middle of sahara makes the game extremely unrealistic.

[Arjos]

Well breeding heavy boned horses for cataphracts isn't that bad, but yes I'm not advocating for a desire to expand there...
And I'm quite happy that there won't be a road leading north from the Caucasus ^^

[stratigos vasilios]

I'm quite happy that there won't be a road leading north from the Caucasus ^^

But that's what makes EB great, although there won't be a road there, you have the choice to build one and take that area yourself. Same for the AI. Every game you play is your own unique experience of what history could have been or what you want it to have been.

That's my opinion anyways

[Arjos]

I was thinking something like a route going along the coast, making the trip a bit longer and hopefully discouraging the AI, but I don't know the ancient caucasian passes...
Re-writing history is one the most appealing features, but for the Hay, having an old achaemenid satrapy giving up and going steppe is sad :P

[vartan]

Not sure if you are replying to my comment but I wasn't saying that we would force the AI to try and control the territory they did historically, just that their avenues of expansion should be realistic. For example, we could make the Hayasdan prefer to expand into Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Crimea. These would be realistic movements, not because they are historical but because they are logical given the reality on the ground at the time. Having them head north into the Russian steppe is not a realistic move and certainly isn't logical, and so would be discouraged (but not forbidden). I should point out that this kind of approach is already found in the original EB, for example the central European megastacks or the fact that there are no roads connecting the Causasus regions with the steppe.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Thanks.

But that's what makes EB great, although there won't be a road there, you have the choice to build one and take that area yourself. Same for the AI. Every game you play is your own unique experience of what history could have been or what you want it to have been.

How do you build a road there if the EB team made the game such that a road there won't be built? Meaning if you build "roads" it won't show up there...right?

[stratigos vasilios]

How do you build a road there if the EB team made the game such that a road there won't be built? Meaning if you build "roads" it won't show up there...right?

I wasn't talking about building roads where they cannot be built.

I was talking about EBI and linking Uspe, Kabalaka and Mtskheta by roads. At the beginning of the game they are not linked but you can choose to build roads and link them together. Hence the choice aspect of EB and making your own and every time you play unique. I was trying to compliment and build up how good EBI was (and still is!).

[antisocialmunky]

Random question, EB uses a cylindrical map right? Is the EB2 map a equirectangular?

[bobbin]

I'm not sure, the EBII map is the same projection though. In a later release we (ie me) might change it to a equal area projection.

I was talking about EBI and linking Uspe, Kabalaka and Mtskheta by roads. At the beginning of the game they are not linked but you can choose to build roads and link them together. Hence the choice aspect of EB and making your own and every time you play unique. I was trying to compliment and build up how good EBI was (and still is!).

My bad, I forgot that there is one road leading north, I do know that roads were prevented from going through some passes to stop the Hai expanding into the steppe. For the record I was talking about tactics that were used in EBI to direct faction expansion, we might not need to do that particular one in EBII.

[TheLastDays]

I'm not sure, the EBII map is the same projection though. In a later release we (ie me) might change it to a equal area projection.

My bad, I forgot that there is one road leading north, I do know that roads were prevented from going through some passes to stop the Hai expanding into the steppe. For the record I was talking about tactics that were used in EBI to direct faction expansion, we might not need to do that particular one in EBII.

Because there's better ways to suggest certain things for the AI to do?

[vartan]

I wasn't talking about building roads where they cannot be built.

I was talking about EBI and linking Uspe, Kabalaka and Mtskheta by roads. At the beginning of the game they are not linked but you can choose to build roads and link them together. Hence the choice aspect of EB and making your own and every time you play unique. I was trying to compliment and build up how good EBI was (and still is!).

What I'm saying is building roads and the roads still not linking these places together. Isn't that what the team did? Or does the modder have no control over what path the roads would take? If so, then the modder could make it such that such impossibilities would never occur. It's been a while since I've built roads there. I don't remember if they link those two or three places or not.

[stratigos vasilios]

What I'm saying is building roads and the roads still not linking these places together. Isn't that what the team did? Or does the modder have no control over what path the roads would take? If so, then the modder could make it such that such impossibilities would never occur. It's been a while since I've built roads there. I don't remember if they link those two or three places or not.

I think I read somewhere that road placements are hardcoded and the team has little control over where the road is placed, that could be rubbish but I think I read that. I'd imagine if the team wanted a road in a region to not connect with another region, they'd put up a physical obstacle to stop it ie A mountain or extra large river? I'm really not sure, Bobbin can you enlighten us?

[TheLastDays]

There's another feature I've been thinking of lately. I'm not even sure if it's historical so my question is partly if it is historical and then only the subsequent question would be if it's possible to be included in the mod.

So, did barbarian warbands, when sacking/raiding a city, take the young boys/men and fill up their ranks with them? Would it be possible to bolster the numbers of a conquering army then, when choosing to exterminate a town?
Of course, even if it was done in reality, it would be hard to implement, because they could of course not replenish any elite units, rather levy units or the likes. Does any of this make sense? ^^

[FinnishedBarbarian]

You mean during conquest of a city that belongs to same culture (aedui conquering gallic city) or any city no matter what culture the inhabitants belong to?

Only example I know of such practise is diadochi wars where soldiers from defeated side were conscripted to victors side, but such practise was caused by lack of ability to recruit hellenes. Had belligerent sides been able to recruit hellenes they likely would have not taken former foes to their ranks.

This leads to another possible implemention: desertion/switching sides, if say ptolemai were losing badly against seleucids and one of their armies was commanded by general who can't keep the order amongst troops anymore, this could lead to some troops deserting to seleucid side. Of course units that could switch sides could only be units that have no strong ties to their paymaster so no agema/hetaroi and such.

Well neither feature is likely to be implemented due to hardcoding/mtw2-engine caused limitations, but you can always keep dreaming...