EB for ETW ideas [Archive]

chairman

02-01-2009, 23:13

I was rather intrigued by the short thread concerning ETW as a possibility for a later version of EB (started by Antinous). As Oudysseos and Foot so correctly stated however, that thread's main purpose had nothing to do with EB. So in the interest of brainstorming ideas about using new features from the upcoming ETW for EB, I have created this thread. Please keep all posts on topic so that we respect the wishes of the moderators and the EB Team.

To moderators: if this should be in another section (e.g. EBII or hosted EB mods) please move it there.

Special disclaimer: this is not at all related to the EB Team and has no prior or anticipated future specific approval or input from them. All of my comments are purely those of a non-team member fan.

Brainstorm away

Chairman

Mulceber

02-01-2009, 23:51

naval battles would be fun in EB, but as stated before, I'm not sure if it would work properly for a couple reasons:

1. triremes were primarily intended for ramming, whereas 18th century vessels did almost none of that (and never intentionally)

2. the game apparently requires you to sail with the currents, and I'm not sure if the AI would be able to figure out oars, which would obviously negate that, although it could add an interesting component to naval combat - rowing allows you to go where you want, but tires your men out faster, sailing tires them out more slowly, but you're reliant on the wind.

Also, I'm not sure that land combat would work as well either, since ETW is focusing pretty much on ranged combat and RTW is mostly melee.

However, I could see this game also opening up a lot of opportunities.

50 available factions means we could add close to 20 factions to EB - thus allowing for Numidia, several more barbarian tribes, syrakousai, India and several other important (but regrettably too small) factions to be represented.

better AI means we might not have to endure all the complaints about the RTW AI

More available provinces means we could also perhaps extend the map even further, encompassing all of India, and perhaps even getting in some or all of China, as well as exploring some of the subsaharan african cultures from that time. The sky's the limit. Heck, if we get enough writers/programmers, it would theoretically be possible to do a world campaign. Think about it, now when you say "I just conquered the world with my ______ faction, you'd actually mean it!" -M

desert

02-02-2009, 00:06

Imperial Roman legionnaries obliterating hordes of Epi-Olmecs. :laugh4::2thumbsup:

A Very Super Market

02-02-2009, 00:19

At least we know that elephants are in ETW.

It would be interesting to have China, but the AI would have to be very passive, otherwise it would pull a Ptolemaioi and conquer all of Asia.

Aemilius Paulus

02-02-2009, 01:41

At least we know that elephants are in ETW.

It would be interesting to have China, but the AI would have to be very passive, otherwise it would pull a Ptolemaioi and conquer all of Asia.
That could be fixed with the fact that unless Siberia is going to be included, most of China is blocked off from the rest of the world by the Himalayas. But then you have naval invasions...

A Very Super Market

02-02-2009, 01:48

Vietnam, Thailand, Korea, Japan, India. Unless you nerf China extremely, all those factions are more or less dead. India may put up a fight, but it also has to deal with the Europeans, while China has had 20+ years to dominate the rest of Asia.

Cute Wolf

02-02-2009, 02:38

I look forward for Ashigaru spearmen fight against Hoplitai haploi...

BTW, did that wolrd campaign include America? Awww... nice:2thumbsup:

gamegeek2

02-02-2009, 02:42

Wait, let's pretend that this is done only on the EB map.

Think of how many Celtic factions there would be.

Megas Methuselah

02-02-2009, 02:48

Boats will be able to ram each other in ETW. However, considerable damage will be done to both ships, so the whole thing will have to be modified a bit. Despite this, the question on ramming cannot fully be answered until ETW actually comes out... on March 3.

Also, ETW will only include Europe, North and Central America, North Africa, Middle-East, and India. Let's hope for a mod to put in the rest of the world.

Novellus

02-02-2009, 03:09

Mulceber

02-02-2009, 03:55

It wouldn't be too hard either - that's the northern hemisphere basically, and if you look at the southern hemisphere, that's mostly water. -M

desert

02-02-2009, 04:30

Australian Aboriginals throwing themselves on the spears of Inuit seal-hunters!!!! :idea2::dizzy2::yes:

Cute Wolf

02-02-2009, 04:48

50++ faction, and we will got syracuse, ethiophia, india, and nearly every independent poleis outside koinnon Hellenon..... in EB map.....

hope we don't screwed with far longer loading time than EB:laugh4:

Mulceber

02-02-2009, 05:00

My concern with the Syrakousai is not letting them get too powerful. I mean, they should be there, but they really shouldn't control anything except maybe a couple islands on sicily and maybe in the mediterranean. they really shouldn't be moving up the italian peninsula, which something tells me the TW AI would do. Also, I'm not very well versed in this, but how accurate is the Koinon Hellenon? I mean, I know it's units and buildings are accurate to Greece, but was there really such a coalition of Sparta Athens and Rhodes? Wouldn't it be far more accurate in EBIII to replace Koinon Hellenon with the Achaean and Aetolian leagues that Polybius mentions? -M

desert

02-02-2009, 05:17

The Chremonidean League/Koinon hellenon was indeed real, albeit extremely short-lived.

Mulceber

02-02-2009, 05:31

hmm...shame. Oh well, I guess history has to take precedence. It's too bad we can't make the Greek city states a cluster of independent states and then just make it easy for them to become protectorates/client kingdoms of each other. -M

A Very Super Market

02-02-2009, 06:00

I think ETW will do that with the German states, as it was in real life.

chairman

02-02-2009, 06:10

Wow. Great ideas. Thanks for all of this so far.

As far as ramming goes, it would be accurate for mediterranean galleys to use ramming to a limited extant, the main issue being that galleys were replaced by purely sail-powered ships by around 1700, meaning that CA may decide not to bother including the ramming function within ETW. However, if they do, it would definitely allow for realistic galley combat, which is a must for an ETW based EB.

The focus on ranged combat could go either way, depending on how it is implemented. Archers, and skirmishers might possibly react more realistically when engaging in pre-battle skirmish. This would be especially helpfull in portraying the ranged combat of Persia and the East. However, it is also possible that focus would only inhibit melee troops from acting normally, which would be very unfortunate. We will have to wait and see.

50 factions, "unlimited" provinces .... does anyone have an estimate of the unit limit? This is very important. I have indeed read comments by EB team members that stated to the effect that a higher unit limit is more important than more factions or even provinces, in a similar way the unlimited model number of M2TW is more important than all of these other factors for EBII.

Makes me hopeful for the future of EB. Keep brainstorming more ideas Orgahs.

Chairman

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

02-02-2009, 09:19

Off topi thread. Spam thread? Lock time?

oudysseos

02-02-2009, 09:59

Maybe just move it as op suggested?

I think it's funny no-one has mentioned what I think is one of the most original and exciting features of ETW: theatres. Apparently there are three theatres of war, with quick travel options between them. What that makes possible for a hellenistic era mod (or any other era) is a high level of local detail now impossible with M2TW or RTW. What I mean is, you could have 'Greece and Asia Minor' as one theatre, with every major Greek city-state on a detailed map, and then move to another theatre, say, 'Persia and India', with the same level of detail. Essentially they have made it possible to integrate seperate local campaigns into a coherent whole.

But MAA is right, this doesn't have much to do with EB or EB2. It belongs in the ETW forum.

chairman

02-02-2009, 11:40

MAA & Oudysseos: I don't see why this is off topic, and I feel disappointed that you would think that I would post any sort of spam on these forums. I take my responsibility as a member of these forums very seriously, and I only try to contribute to the knowledge and enjoyment of other members while learning what I can from those members who have their own insight to contribute. As my small post count indicates, I only post when I think it is important or worthwhile. I completely understood the reasons that Antinous' ETW thread was locked after the original question was answered, but I believe that this thread is appropriate for the EB forum. Its purpose is to discuss how ETW could be used to enhance EB in later versions. So far, those who have posted have only posted relevant, and in my humble opinion, insightful subject matter. I ask you to please allow this thread to remain open as long as it remains on topic (which it so far has). The only reason that in my original post I asked moderators to move this thread if appropriate was that I did not know whether the general EB or EBII forums would be better suited.

As respectful as always

Chairman

oudysseos

02-02-2009, 11:53

Chairman, I don't speak officially for the EB team in these matters so don't take my comments in that way. I don't think that your posts are in the least spam, but they are about a hypothetical EB3 mod for ETW. Since EB2 is not yet finished and ETW is not yet released, and since this forum is intended to be about EB 1 for RTW, I do think that the ETW part of the org is more appropriate. There is even a subforum for ETW mods. Start a thread there? You can link it in your signature if you want to draw attention to it.

chairman

02-02-2009, 12:04

Thank you Oudysseos for your response. I understand what you are saying about the ETW forums.

However, in the past, there have been instances of moderators asking members to move their topics from the EBII forum since they only concerned EB in general as opposed to EBII in specific. While this forum began as a forum specifically for EBI for RTW, it has now become the "EB Forum mainpage" if you will, which I believe means that it is the appropriate place for non-spam, on topic, EB related content that does not specifically fall under the categories of EBII, Bugs & Help, unofficial mods or AARs. As this thread concerns EB in general but does not fall under any of the aforementioned categories, it is my humble opinion that it belongs in the EB general forum.

Please excuse me if any of my posts seem rude or insincere. That would be the opposite of my intentions, and I do everything I can (within the confines of internet communication) to assure that my posts are understood as the respectful and sincere messages that I intend them to be.

It seems that in my attempt to justify this threads original purpose I have changed it. I'm sorry. If you wish to continue this conversation please PM me.

Thank you again

Chairman

oudysseos

02-02-2009, 12:13

You are not in the least rude or insincere and your point about this forum being the EB 'main page' is a very good one.
There has in fact been a lot of discussion in the EB dev forum about the issue of the forum and what if anything to do about it. The problem is that a lot of time is spent by EB moderators in tracking down spam and trolls (not you by any stretch), time that could be better spent.

So whaddya think about theatres? To me, another 20+ factions is not so important: it's hard enough to get work done on the 10 new factions for EB2. At some point you just gotta say enough.

chairman

02-02-2009, 20:49

Thanks again Oudysseos.

Indeed I agree about the relative unimportance of so many more faction slots. As I said earlier, IMHO it is the unit limit that is the most pressing feature, being the main limiting factor on the ability of EB to expand.

I am unfamiliar with the theaters concept so I don't have much of an opinion or very many ideas regarding it. It sounds useful, like you said to show dense areas like Greece and Asia Minor. However I worry that the areas in between theaters will get less attention and detail.

Chairman

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

02-02-2009, 22:02

My post was really concerning the OP or the topic but rather a warning against stupid one-liners that have no purpose or are "fan-boy-ish". I, personally, won't close this thread, yet. Though, keep it organized.

chairman

02-02-2009, 23:37

Thanks MAA. After I posted in response to your warning, I reviewed the thread again and noticed what you were talking about. I will try to keep it more organized. Thanks again.

@Oudysseos: how does the theaters feature work, and how many theaters are possible for a single campaign map? What other areas of the map do you think would be worth using this for aside from Greece and Asia Minor?

To other posters: please try to keep comments on topic so that we can respect the wishes of the moderators and the trust they have placed in us to allow us to post in this thread. Thank you

Chairman

Antinous

02-03-2009, 03:21

Maybe Korinthos could be split into elis for the eastern Korinthean land. This way greece could be a little more challenging.

desert

02-03-2009, 03:41

What about Argos?

Mulceber

02-03-2009, 03:44

I agree, there should be more cities in greece. Athens, Corinth and Sparta really aren't enough. -M

A Very Super Market

02-03-2009, 04:04

Actually, wouldn't it be cool to use the three theatres in ETW and make them into Italy, Greece (including Makedonia) and Asia Minor? It would be like the pre-super-Romans and more like the actual warring city-states...

desert

02-03-2009, 04:39

I'm not quite getting this theater concept.

But wouldn't making the three theatres Italy, Anatolia, and Greece mean that Africa, the steppes, Gaul, Iberia, Britain, and the rest of Asia have to be left out?

Ibrahim

02-03-2009, 05:02

wait!

what of Chariots? are they simulable in ETW? and did the CA give a model limit?

also, I think its too early to chalk up concepts without at least knowing the engine in detail.

my 2 cents..

antisocialmunky

02-03-2009, 05:05

In the south there's Elis, Argos, Megalopolis, Corinth, Olympia, Sparta, and Messena.

Also, the Theatres should be China, N.America, and Central Africa. Romans vs Mezo Americans would be hilarious.

lobf

02-03-2009, 07:14

as well as exploring some of the subsaharan african cultures from that time. The sky's the limit. Heck, if we get enough writers/programmers, it would theoretically be possible to do a world campaign. Think about it, now when you say "I just conquered the world with my ______ faction, you'd actually mean it!" -M

The ability to conquer the world with a sub-Saharan African faction would be kind of lame, though. I mean, some things are just not feasible. I'd leave certain cultures unplayable, I think, or at least with a severely nerfed tech tree.

chairman

02-03-2009, 07:37

Whoa there boys! We can't go about even considering expanding to China and the Americas until we know more details about the engine. Ibrahim has a point. Not to mention that the current map parameters provide more than enough substance for development. Also, just China alone would require at least 10 faction slots; Korea/Japan is 2 more; the eastern steppes (Xiongnu, Yuezhi, Wusun ...) at least 4 or more; India needs at least 4 ... you get the picture.

I have no idea whether chariots, catapults, slingers or javelin throwers are still possible for the ETW engine. I dearly hope so.

Desert also has a point about not leaving out the rest of the EB world just so that we can focus on what is a few people's favorite areas in Greece, Italy and Asia Minor. As I told Oudysseos, I hadn't heard about the theaters feature until today.

As to the unit and model limits ...? I hope they raised them. I was surprised to hear that there won't be a province limit any longer. I know that the EB team has at least 20-30 unit ideas that they wanted to include in EBI and EBII that they won't be able to (the number is pure speculation, but is based on comments over the years from EB members). Obviously, these units would take precedence over brand new unit ideas or units and faction from off of the current map.

Which brings us to the intriguing question of factions. We know that there are 50 factions; are they all playable? If so, should all them be used? As Oudysseos said earlier, it is hard enough to develop 30 factions let alone 50! So I wonder if the EB team would use all of these slots or if they leave some of them unused or for scripting purposes. Another consideration that has at least until now been consistantly rejected (and for good reason) by the EB team is the possibility of non-playable and emerging factions. If for some reason they decided to do this, there would be many new oppurtunities.

Another so far unmentioned issue is that of culture. This has been a constant and painful reminder to the EB team and all RTW/M2TW modders of the limits of the engines. Hopefully the culture limits will be raised.

Helpful input is welcome. Thank you

Chairman

lenin96

02-03-2009, 10:38

The two theartes could be one of the current EB map and one of India and the territory of the Saka that wasn't on the EB map.:beam:

oudysseos

02-03-2009, 10:52

Yah, if there ever was an EB3 team (and that's a big if), I doubt that they would ever seriously consider expanding the scope to include the Americas or China. At most I could see the concept going on to include more of the Indian sub-continent and maybe a bit more of south-eastern Africa, but it is Europa Barbarorum after all.

Bigger is not necessarily better, especially for game play.

Another so far unmentioned issue is that of culture. This has been a constant and painful reminder to the EB team and all RTW/M2TW modders of the limits of the engines. Hopefully the culture limits will be raised. *bangs head on wall* Damn culture and religion limits! Makes everything much harder.

Lysimachos

02-03-2009, 11:31

EB is a realism mod, afterall, and would always remain one, if there ever was a EB 3 to be, and it is one of the first things to remember. Speculation about the existence or the amount of contact of ancient europe with regions like China or - more notably in this context - America is allowed, but the assumption of a successful military expedition is beyond anything conceivable.
EB 3, if it is going to be, should focus on a map of similar scope as the actual one and try to use the additional possibilities for more detail in that area.
It might be fun to fight meso-americans and chinese with roman legions, but that is a thing for a different mod, not for EB.

So, let's just hope that the Empires-engine allows for ancient combat and that a qualified team of modders will find to carry the torch of Europa Barbarorum even beyond EB II.

Sorry if I'm repeating something already said, I haven't read all.

Mediolanicus

02-03-2009, 11:53

Silence Hunter

02-03-2009, 12:00

All the features sounds interesting and promising, but has anyone thought about time. Not the ingame one, but the real amount of time it takes to make a mod as grand as EB. How long it took to make EB? I was not around when it started, but I think it should be something like 3 years. Now the team is in process of making EBII. A lot of the data is already available from EB, but still it is going to require a lot of time till the mod is ready.

Now consider ETW. It is entirely different concept. Modern warfare, very different from ancient. Even if the engile is easily modable it is going to take huge amount of time to convert it to ancient period. We do not even know when EBII is going to be ready and any thoughts about making EBIII with ETW engine may only start after the EBII is out.

In my opinion it is much more feasible that after ETW there is going to be something like RomeII:TW, which means that this engine might be much more suitable for EBIII (if there is going to be such at all). With this in mind making EB on ETW engine sounds entirely inefficient. But I guess we need to wait and see what future holds.

Mulceber

02-03-2009, 17:11

You know, EB has been so successful, that if Sega decided to make a Rome II: Total War, it might be possible that the EB team could give them all their research and Rome II would BE EBIII. -M

Mediolanicus

02-03-2009, 17:40

You know, EB has been so successful, that if Sega decided to make a Rome II: Total War, it might be possible that the EB team could give them all their research and Rome II would BE EBIII. -M

This whole thread has been about wishful thinking, but this is taking it to the extreme.

EB is a bit too historical for the main audience. Games have the tendency to get more and more simple. EB is not what you'd call a simple and arcade-like game.

And perhaps the most important reason: CA isn't going to pay the EB team for their research, that would cost them too much. Not paying them would cost them even more because of the law suits that would generate.

Which doesn't mean that these aren't all very exciting ideas (although some of them are clearly not suited for a mod like EB), but let's wait and see what ETW turns out to be first before talking about modding it and let's wait for EBII before talking about EBIII.

Mulceber

02-03-2009, 17:51

This whole thread has been about wishful thinking, but this is taking it to the extreme.

I agree, but why is that necessarily a bad thing? We can always speculate and dream. It's not like we're planning on developing anything, just thinking about the future.

Also, I disagree with the statement that EB is too historical for most audiences. I've seen a lot of people here who came in with no knowledge of history who ended up loving EB. Even gaming magazines have played it and said it feels like a whole new game and is an improvement on the original RTW. I could easily see people buying into a truly accurate version of R2TW. -M

Mediolanicus

02-03-2009, 18:56

I agree, but why is that necessarily a bad thing? We can always speculate and dream. It's not like we're planning on developing anything, just thinking about the future.

I never said that was a bad thing. I said there were some great ideas in here.
I'm dreaming of playing a grand world campaign with the depth of EB, or just playing EB on a better game engine too.

Also, I disagree with the statement that EB is too historical for most audiences. I've seen a lot of people here who came in with no knowledge of history who ended up loving EB. Even gaming magazines have played it and said it feels like a whole new game and is an improvement on the original RTW. I could easily see people buying into a truly accurate version of R2TW. -M

True, but you are forgetting that EB is for free. I doubt as many people would give it a try when it costs you.
Besides, wardogs, flamings pigs, ninja Romans, etc.. were in RTW with a reason. It adds to the "coolness-factor" of the game.
EB may be 1000 times better than RTW vanilla, but IMHO RTW vanilla still has a greater audience.

I secretly hope you are right and I am wrong though :embarassed:.

I have serious doubts people like this would spend €50 on a game which has "something written in french underneath" the titel.

I got as far as the first title screen, the one with 'EUROPA BARBAROM' then something written in french underneath, and something like 'Modification for Rome - Total War' underneath that.

I'm kind of laughing with the guy now, so I decided to change his name to anonymous.

Antinous

02-04-2009, 01:05

It would be great Sega actually used EB's knowledge, but they probably wouldn't, because of paying issues. Also that would be awesome to have huge map to china, but that might cause further ctd problems for people with slow or older computers.

a completely inoffensive name

02-04-2009, 01:08

desert

02-04-2009, 01:14

Is it true that triremes fall apart unless you clean them on shore every couple of weeks?

If so, then how people ever get any sailing done?

Silence Hunter

02-04-2009, 01:14

What I would like to see regarding the map is not the scope but the size of the map. At the moment Korinthos and Sparta takes 2/5 of the Peloponnese (the actual city models on campaign map). What if they would take only 1/15 or 1/20 of Peloponnese? The map would be huge. This would lead to alot more field battles and less sieges. IMHO it would be a huge improvement for gameplay. Tactical maneuvering would make sense then.

Antinous

02-04-2009, 01:33

That would be awesome having greece be so huge. That way you could have so many other cities like argos, elis, Olympia ect.

chairman

02-04-2009, 02:25

That is a good point Silence Hunter. Indeed the EB team has already mentioned that EBII will have a larger map with the same parameters.

I have been thinking over what would be priorities to add for EB3 in terms of what new features or expanded limits are available. The format is: "- addition (provisional requirement) [status of requirement]". From most important to least:

-adding provinces to India (higher province limit) [mostly confirmed]

-adding leftover units from EBI/then EBII (higher unit limit) [unknown]

-adding leftover factions from EBI/then EBII (higher faction limit) [confirmed]

-adding more cultures, within current map (higher culture limit) [unknown]

-adding provinces to Mesopotamia, Persia, and the Steppes (higher province limit) [mostly confirmed]

-adding units to existing factions (higher unit limit) [unknown]

-expanding the map to include more of India and the eastern Steppe (higher province limit/higher culture limit/higher unit limit/higher faction limit) [mostly confirmed/unknown/unknown/confirmed]*

-adding factions to India and the Steppe; Mauryans and/or Yuezhi (higher faction limit) [confirmed]*

-utilizing the theaters feature for various regions (new theaters feature) [mostly confirmed]

....

much later....

-adding beyond the current map in terms of provinces, factions, units ...etc (higher province, faction, unit, and culture limits) [varying confirmations]**

*These two changes would require the EB team to alter a long held, iron-strong policy of not using un-playable and/or emerging factions and/or off-map factions. This is why the expansion of the map precedes the addition of these factions.

**This is much, much further in the future, well after EB3 has become stable and possibly after the EB3 1.0 version. Don't cry yet. You can be assured that as soon as the first official (or unofficial) beta of EB3 is released that somebody will mod it to include Aboriginees, Inuits, Zulu and Chinese.

Chairman

Leviathan DarklyCute

02-04-2009, 05:46

Will never exist in this universe.

chairman

02-04-2009, 06:11

What do you mean?

Lysimachos

02-04-2009, 08:42

I don't understand the hostility of an EB3 having the Americas. If you have the native american cultures why not just make the victory conditions taking over their respective regions or just the Americas. you don't have to have cross atlantic invasions for a victory.

Because, if the ocean is not meant to be crossed, it would be a waste to have both continents. One mod for europe and one mod for america would be much more efficient than one mod for both, in terms of still existing limits and gameplay.

oudysseos

02-04-2009, 08:59

Speaking for myself, it's not hostility, but
a. too much work
and mostly
b. not enough known about the cultures of the americas in this time period.
American factions and units and so on for the 3rd century BCE would be guesswork, fantasy, and extreme interpolation of a spotty archaeological record.

Doesn't fit the EB ethos of historical accuracy.

lenin96

02-04-2009, 09:18

I agree, I think expanding into India would be good, China would probaly be to far but expanding the map into India could be a good idea.

And about factions, everyone in the game could be a faction but would be just like Eleutheroi but would behave more realistic and would only have units that Eleutheroi would have normally had if they held the area. Good idea?

lobf

02-05-2009, 03:17

I don't understand the hostility of an EB3 having the Americas. If you have the native american cultures why not just make the victory conditions taking over their respective regions or just the Americas. you don't have to have cross atlantic invasions for a victory.

I think the Americans lacked the geographical and natural resources to form/sustain large empires. No horses, no oxen, none of the big crops from Asia. (all important factors in the eventual development of the Asian/European cultures) not to mention a longitudinal continent which discouraged the spread of people/crops/ideas. It might be kind of a crippled campaign.

desert

02-05-2009, 03:53

Probably for the same reason you shouldn't be able to control Germania: what exactly are you ruling?
Unless, of course, you have the option of constructing cities in ETW *drools*.

lobf

02-05-2009, 05:44

Probably for the same reason you shouldn't be able to control Germania: what exactly are you ruling?
Unless, of course, you have the option of constructing cities in ETW *drools*.

Interesting thought. But Germania at least had all of the ingredients for success at that time. The EB model of ruling one tribe makes enough sense, I suppose: One tribe may extend it's influence over larger and larger swaths of Germania.

A Very Super Market

02-05-2009, 05:54

Have you forgotten the Aztecs and Incas? Granted, it was extremely feudal, but still an empire. The Iroquois aren't an empire, but we only use factions in Total War.

lobf

02-05-2009, 06:00

Have you forgotten the Aztecs and Incas? Granted, it was extremely feudal, but still an empire. The Iroquois aren't an empire, but we only use factions in Total War.

Yeah, but on their own they (probably) lacked the ability to advance like people from Eurasia. But we can never really know, I guess.

desert

02-05-2009, 06:06

Check out those huge urban capitals they had, though.

"Some tribe" couldn't just go and conquer everyone, even if they won every battle, or the "empire" would disintegrate in a very short time. Or, they could do it the nomad way and massacre lots of people while moving their own into the newly conquered lands; but an empire really needs centralization. Otherwise it would be better represented by Eleutheroi.

The really sad part about all that, though, is that if North America were included in an EB3, I could easily see players using Native Americans to defeat retarded AI TABs. :wall:

Ibrahim

02-05-2009, 06:53

well, granted, technically (going by tools), the Aztecs were a stone age people, and the Inca a bronze age people (sort of). however, they had 10,000 years to work on flints and obsidians, and I can tell you: they are almost as good as metal weapons. also, their missile tech (atlatls, slings, and a few bows), were dangerous even to the conquistadores.

their only real problem is that obsidian and flint don't bend and aren't maleable, so if its broken, you have to make a new one (if an edge is chipped, you can chip a new blade back, but only for so long).

bobbin

02-05-2009, 10:04

The Aztecs and Incas were roughly 1500 years after EBs timeframe, the maya and the olmecs are the only states in the america's at that time that i know of.

Ludens

02-08-2009, 15:24

Is it true that triremes fall apart unless you clean them on shore every couple of weeks?

If so, then how people ever get any sailing done?

I am not sure if they lasted that briefly, but triremes did get waterlogged if they were not maintained for a couple of months. But this was not much of an issue, since that was ample time to get from one end of the Mediterranean to the other. And this also wasn't the main logistical constraint that trireme fleets faced. They had to stop and resupply every couple of days, because there was little storage space and a crew of 100+ requires large amounts of food and drink.

Yeah, but on their own they (probably) lacked the ability to advance like people from Eurasia. But we can never really know, I guess.

The Inca's had a pretty advanced empire. No match for the Europeans perhaps, but not that far behind either. The Europeans were also helped enormously by local allies that were sick of Inca rule, by the fact that the Inca empire was divided by civil war, and by the diseases that Europeans introduced in America.

My objection to include the America's in EB is the same as to including China or southern Africa: there was little to no interaction between these area. There was very little interaction possible between these areas, due to geographical barriers. Yes, a trireme could be used to reach America, technically. But it would not be able to do so reliably (triremes are not suited to the Atlantic), and certainly not carrying any army (they simply cannot carry enough food and water). So you've essentially wasted several slots on American factions that you are not going to see when you are playing an Eurasian faction. It would be far better to make a separate mod for America, and save the EB faction slots for factions in the current EB theatre. The same argument applies more or less to China: there was some contact, but not much, and to do China justice would require it's own mod.

Mister V

02-09-2009, 11:13

I say, let us look first at ETW.
If the engine is sufficiently advanced, if the AI is really improved and hardcode limits allow for greater flexibility than M2TW, then yes.
Otherwise - too much complications, there isn't much of a graphical upgrade, and you'd have to adjust everything to the new engine. CA will make Rome2TW by the time the mod is done.

Phalanx300

02-09-2009, 21:49

I'm most exited about the fact that there will be 50 available faction slots!:2thumbsup:

If there would be a EB for Empires this would mean that splitting the KH up can be a possible thing(and with some certain scripting have a alliance untill certain conditions are met).

bobbin

02-09-2009, 23:05

I've been wondering about this fifty factions number, it seems to refer to the number of factions in the game not the maximum number of allowed factions, remember M2TW had 21 factions but a faction limit of 31.

lenin96

02-10-2009, 08:12

Mister V

02-10-2009, 23:15

I think no limit could be possible, if you look at the ETW map of Europe it has some rather small factions and if CA was bothered to put the Duchy of Courland (it was very small and didn't expand) in the game they must have a lot of faction slots .

Wtf? They made the duchy of Kourland a separate faction?
I didn't know they've released the campaign map, must've missed it:inquisitive:

lenin96

02-10-2009, 23:42

See this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=111761).
If you look through about 2 or 3 pages in the ETW subforum you should be able to find one.

chairman

03-03-2009, 04:40

Well, ETW is only a day or so away, and in the meantime, I have been keeping a close eye on the ETW forums for any scraps of information about new features or relaxed hardcoded limits. So here is some of what I have found and how it might affect a future version of EB:

Faction limit: at least 50, though it seems that it might be higher

soldiers per unit limit: no longer an issue, so the first thing on everyone's mind is: 256 phalangite strong-syntagma and maybe (agh!) 480 man strong-cohorts! At least the possibility is there.

Province limit: none, so the map could become even more detailed than would be safe! :laugh4:

Theatre limit: I haven't heard of a limit on the number of different theatres that can exist ingame, so this is good news so far as it means that there doesn't need to be an argument over whether Greece, Asia Minor and Italy or India, Gaul and the Steppes recieve this new features, as all of them could potentially have them.

Unit limit: unkown, at least to me, at this point. This is the crucial limit because it is almost pointless to add new factions and provinces if there are no new units to fill them in. Hopefully the game release will bring us good news on this count.

According to new hands-on review by Shireknight (linked to the Org. by Lusitani), fleets are actually able to capture ports instead of just blockading them. Supposedly this is to represent landing parties of marines and armed sailors. This is very useful for portraying the full threat that a large fleet poses to coastal regions (i.e. the fleet that Ptolemy sent to support the Chremonidean league against Makedon).

Hope you guys like this. I know that some of you have also been excitedly watching the ETW forums as well.

Chairman

oudysseos

03-03-2009, 08:47

I was a bit underwhelmed by the battle demo, but I did notice a few things: it seems like you'd be able to occupy buildings on the battlefield (very cool, although less important if you don't have muskets) and that there will also be battlefield obstacles/fortifications of some kind, although no indication if they can be placed by the player.

On the other hand the graphical quality of the soldiers was poor and it seems like the Clone troopers are back.

I'm most disappointed by the lack of realism in command and control: you can still micro-manage each unit while flying above the battlefield with god-like tactical intelligence. I had secretly hoped for advances here: a system of giving orders to subordinates or something. Too much to ask for, I guess.