Idea

[lobf]

I'm sure someone somewhere thought of this, but one of the bummers of playing "barbarian" factions is the smaller cities, less development, etc. They're still super-fun, they just have drawbacks.

If a barbarian faction conquered a region of higher population, more trade and contact with the outside world, greater wealth, could reforms be added to allow them to build more complicated infrastructure? As if they were assimilating and continuing to enlarge their cities with subjugated engineers and such.

Now keep in mind I am entirely ignorant as to the work this would take, but there are at least two approaches to this. They could conquer a region (a number of provinces) or simply one of a number of designated "civilizing" cities, which they would have to hold for a particular number of years perhaps.

Not only would this make the games in the long run more interesting as your faction could continue to change, but it would make many interesting new possibilities for migratory campaigns. Waddya think?

[Tellos Athenaios]

For EB2 the whole deal with reforms etc. etc. will be a whole lotta different; and 'theching up' should be less of a concern/issue. If I understood the internal discussion correctly.

[dom385]

it could be done sort of like the thing in kingdoms britain campaign where if there is a certain amount of culture you can recruit that factions untis but do it so say if your the gauls and you take a nig roman town your best soldiers might get a bit of lorrica segmenta or better shield or something like that that make them more effective.

[General Appo]

That sounds all right, except for the Lorica Segmenta part.

[Ludens]

I don't think it's possible, though. M2:TW has the same unit limit as R:TW, and the EB1 is already close to the limit.

[dom385]

well lorica segmenta is the only type of roman armour i could remember and it sounds cleverer. but if it was an armour upgrade it wouldnt take up a unit slot thingy would it ?

[General Appo]

*sigh* Lorica Segmenta was not used by the Romans in the EB timeperiod, please don´t bring it up again as it is a bit of a recurrent joke among EB diehards that so many people ask for it to be included.

[Hax]

Agh! Agh! *twitch*

[antisocialmunky]

Here's a question, did anyone else use that type of armour? LS is a little unique and hard to classify since its somewhere between plate and lamellar armor.

[Ludens]

well lorica segmenta is the only type of roman armour i could remember and it sounds cleverer. but if it was an armour upgrade it wouldnt take up a unit slot thingy would it ?
True, however armour upgrades are problematic for another reason (one cannot adjust the exact magnitude of the upgrade). Also, technology spread through other ways than conquest. For example, the Macedonians and Greeks adopted chainmail despite never conquering a Roman or Celtic town. And, to get back to your example, what would the Gauls adopt if they conquered a Roman town? Chainmail? Celts invented chainmail. Roman shields? The oval legionary shield was a direct copy of a Celtic design. Romans helmets? See previous answer.

[dom385]

so will the romans only have chainmail/lorica hamata is that the right one ?

[Ludens]

so will the romans only have chainmail/lorica hamata is that the right one ?
That will be the main Roman armour, yes. However, if EB1 is any guide, there will also be several Roman units wearing lorica squamata (scale).

[Watchman]

Here's a question, did anyone else use that type of armour? LS is a little unique and hard to classify since its somewhere between plate and lamellar armor.It's normally called "laminate" (the individual horizontal strip being a "lame"). It seems to first turn up in Achaemenid Persian heavy-cavalry arm defenses, although the Central Asian nomads may have been the originators, and thereafter got pretty popular among cataphracts as limb armour. I'm under the impression the Romans first used it on gladiators, and at some point came up with the idea of adapting the construction into corselet form.

Post Antiquity it eventually starts turning up all over the place in one form or another as an independent design.

[Moosemanmoo]

HAMATA!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SAY HAMATA!!!

*screams in panic, leaves and slams the door*

[Spartan198]

HAMATA!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SAY HAMATA!!!

*screams in panic, leaves and slams the door*
Hamata.

[Ashtart]

I find a problem in total war games.
When I play I try to keep the same army during all the campaign to have a very experienced units but I find that it more easy to have experience when you play automatic battles than real manual battle. It's true for RTW and M2TW
For EB2 could you correct this.

A ptolemaic fan

[blacksnail]

Not likely, I suspect it is just as hard-coded for M2TW as it was for RTW. If anybody knows otherwise, please let us know.

[lobf]

I've got my right nut on hardcoded.

[Ashtart]

I've got an idea for the problem of experiences:idea2: . I rid "The art of war" of Sun zi and there's something which give me an idea. Sun zi says that a general who known the battle field can have more advantages, so why not make a parallele type of experience with the number of turn a general goes in a province. example:
-If it's the first time he goes in a province he has no experience of it
-If it's the third time he knows few things which can give him and his army some advantages
-If it's the fifth time he can know a lot
This knowledge of the province can be translate in more mouvement on campaign map or on battle field map. And when local troops will attack a general who come on there land for the first time, locals can have more advantages.

We understand what I mean with my bad English

[lobf]

There would have to be another script that would track all FM movement and count how many times they had been in a province. Even if possible it would slow the game way down.

[O'ETAIPOS]

I find a problem in total war games.
When I play I try to keep the same army during all the campaign to have a very experienced units but I find that it more easy to have experience when you play automatic battles than real manual battle. It's true for RTW and M2TW
For EB2 could you correct this.

A ptolemaic fan

I think game counts kill numbers (and maybe number of battles) for each soldier in unit (do not ask how, it's just the most logical conclusion)

On autocalc those are divided equaly resulting in faster growth of exp. On played battles you can have some soldiers who killed 10 opponents and some without kill - this means that exp level do not have to grow. What's more, shooters advance faster than melee units as even in played battle each soldier has much bigger chance to get some kills.

[Ashtart]

There would have to be another script that would track all FM movement and count how many times they had been in a province. Even if possible it would slow the game way down.
You're right If there're too much script the game will be slower (as in Deus lo vult:hanged: )

[Ashtart]

In TW games there's the possibility of put an other faction not as allies but with less importance (I don't remember the word they use), why not make a system of pacifiq annexion, where you can controle the territory with more trouble. there isn't only war in our world.:flowers:

I don't know if I'm understandable:freak:

[antisocialmunky]

Bribe?

[Ibrahim]

no-he's referring to the client kingdoms (in RTW=protectorate)

[Ashtart]

Yes I don't remember this name (sorry).

If you're very powerfull a faction can be a protactorate cause they don't want to fught with you. I don't think that's a stupid Idea but it can be bad for the game play.

Another idea: Can there be town as in RTW with economics and military aspects (homeland), and two kind of cities for the other??? cause in M2TW there's only economic town and military town. It wasn't the same thing in antiquity

[lobf]

Can anyone give a little more detail on how the new reforms will work?

[lobf]

*ahem*

[Tellos Athenaios]

No. :wink:

[lobf]

Heh, i figured the silence was intentional. Just checking.