Can we have more historical battles please?

[Leviathan DarklyCute]

Title~

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

There was almost no feedback on the historical battles.
It was assumed that nobody played them.

[Cyrus]

I play them quite often.Now that i can't load 1,2 and my singleplayer 1,1 is screwed up they're the only thing i play.

[Krusader]

There was almost no feedback on the historical battles.
It was assumed that nobody played them.

What MAA said. Which is why Sellasia for example has been put on hold.

[Phalanx300]

I do play them, and really liked them :idea2:. I'm sure most people have played them.

And Selassia on hold?! Live has no purpose anymore :help:.

[antisocialmunky]

Raphia was quite fun until those elephants ended me.

[anubis88]

well it's not just the battles themselves. Although i played many of them, it was much more important to read the descriptions, and to see how an army of that time of a particular faction would look like

[Phalanx300]

I really hope that new battles will still come, especially Sellasia where Sparte fought Makedonia! (Even though the Spartans fought as Phalangites)

[abou]

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Probably not. Why? Well, a couple of reasons.

1. I did most of the historical battles along with another member Ed. Ed got busy and is in and out. Myself having started a degree in veterinary medicine means that I'm also busy. Very busy.

2. These battles take a lot of work. I currently have about four battles all in various stages of completion (Peluseion, Bibracte, Sellasia, and a battle from the Maccabean uprisings) as well as a few others in mind and their release is doubtful considering my schedule. Even with briefer descriptions, the time spent on research and terrain is more than the time I have to spend. The most work I've done in the past two months is renew library books.

3. The AI and its need for battle formations is a pain to make battles work the way you want them to. When requested for help, no one stepped forward. A lamentable situation I made mention of in our release of the battles back in July. It sucks to spend time on recreating battle lines only to see the AI reorder itself because it can only recognize formations that have been programmed.

4. There was absolutely zero feedback outside of the initial posts in the release threads. Rather than getting questions or the beginnings of genuine debates on interpretations of the battles, all the team saw were textual ejaculations and diarrhea on Celts or LS and lame requests in the fora for every minutiae forum members could conceive. paullus and I both spent incredible amounts of time on Panion alone, adding our own interpretation of events to the sparse information we have from Polybios; only to see what could be interpreted as a complete lack of interest from the fans. Hell, I thought someone would have started an uproar from my incomplete (and certainly full of typos) description of Magnesia and my section on Antiochos' tactics.

Honestly, if you want to completely destroy someone's motivation, watch 4,000+ people download a file and not comment on it while bitching about whatever lame things comes to mind with no consideration or conception as how to formulate an argument.

So with all that in mind, my final response is not to hold your breath... or hold it since it might be more fun that way.

[antisocialmunky]

The thing about historic battles is that they aren't particularly personable. You're thrown into a scenario for a few minutes to have fun, not to critique the hell out of it. Also for someone who plays on huge, the unit numbers are small and it just doesn't feel very epic. I'm appreciative of the effort expended on them but I dunno, it just doesn't work for me.

Now if there was a way to coop/fight another player the battles, that would be epic. Honestly, in one of these future tournements, we need to have one where we fight historic battles 2vs2 or 3vs3. On huge that's getting close to 2-4:1.

Perhaps it would be better to have maps of the battlefield and army compositions so we can fight it out online. :-D

[abou]

First and foremost, your computer isn't going to handle battles that big, let alone your internet connection. Second, Panion and Magnesia are multiplayer battles. In fact, a version of Panion was going to be a 2 vs 2 battle, but no one bothered to actually give it a test.

[antisocialmunky]

I don't know about that. I've had 10K vs 10K battles before offline that were moderately laggy but I also did have a 5K vs 5K vs 5K battle online that ran at full speed.

Soo... wait, how do you play Historic Battles online?

[Tollheit]

... textual ejaculations.. diarrhea ... lame... minutiae ...bitching ... lame ... or hold it since it might be more fun that way.
Charming. It feels so good to witness your utter contempt for us, once more.

[Phalanx300]

Historical battles are the same with AAR's, alot of people look at it and play it, yet not all of those post comments about it.

And it's a shame really that it might not be continued as it is now.:skull:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Charming. It feels so good to witness your utter contempt for us, once more.

Try to connect 1, 2 and 4; and also read what's written. I think you'll understand abou has pretty much had it with these public fora, and the reasons why (namely the chain of 1, 2 and 4).

[antisocialmunky]

Well, I just found out how to play historic battles online. That changes everything. I'm going to try a few of them out over Hamachi later. :)

[Phalanx300]

Yeah, if only we knew before! :idea2:

I still hope for the other battles to possibly be released one day. Though I'm curios, how were you guys planning to represent the Spartans at Sellasia? Koinen Phalangites with alot of upgrades? :book:

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hate to spoil it for the rest of you, but I barely pay attention to the battles. They are either too easy, too hard, or simply dead-end compared to the campaign. "Yey! I won! So what?" In EB II< the campaign should be first priority, with the historical battles included in the alter releases for those that like them. There is so much to do in EB II that I am sure most of the BE fans would rather have a better campaign than some historical battles.

So I can say that abou's post was relief to me. On the other hand, someone should make a poll and sticky it on both the EB I and EB II forums. Seriously, mehumblythinks that the EB team should make more of these official polls to see what us plebs like the best. Everything that is historical will be kept historical, but priorities and the rest should be discussed, as long as they are realistic. What do you think, fellow EB-ers?

[Fluvius Camillus]

Well I really liked the added battles (although the AI screwed up a lot as you said). And would really like to see more, I didnt comment because I just liked them and played them.

From overall, I think Telamon is the best.

Please keep coming up with more.

[Macilrille]

Some comments inserted...

Short answer: No.
Sad

Longer answer: Probably not. Why? Well, a couple of reasons.

1. I did most of the historical battles along with another member Ed. Ed got busy and is in and out. Myself having started a degree in veterinary medicine means that I'm also busy. Very busy.

Thanks for doing them, I personally like to have the option of playing historical battles (as I am a historian) and was overjoyed when I saw they had been added. As a historian (and sometimes boardgame designer) I also appreciate the time it takes to design them, so thanks again. My sister a vet, my brother in law a world-reknowned professor in his field (cloning farmstock) and my niece is studying as a vet. I applaud tyour choice, one that is more important then desiging scenarios. That being said, I would love to see more.


3. The AI and its need for battle formations is a pain to make battles work the way you want them to. When requested for help, no one stepped forward. A lamentable situation I made mention of in our release of the battles back in July. It sucks to spend time on recreating battle lines only to see the AI reorder itself because it can only recognize formations that have been programmed.

:furious3: that AI.


4. There was absolutely zero feedback outside of the initial posts in the release threads. Rather than getting questions or the beginnings of genuine debates on interpretations of the battles, all the team saw were textual ejaculations and diarrhea on Celts or LS and lame requests in the fora for every minutiae forum members could conceive. paullus and I both spent incredible amounts of time on Panion alone, adding our own interpretation of events to the sparse information we have from Polybios; only to see what could be interpreted as a complete lack of interest from the fans. Hell, I thought someone would have started an uproar from my incomplete (and certainly full of typos) description of Magnesia and my section on Antiochos' tactics.

Honestly, if you want to completely destroy someone's motivation, watch 4,000+ people download a file and not comment on it while bitching about whatever lame things comes to mind with no consideration or conception as how to formulate an argument.

So with all that in mind, my final response is not to hold your breath... or hold it since it might be more fun that way.

This is where I almost choked on my dinner. Now, we are Humans, humans have strange and peculiar habits of focusing on some things and wishing them included in whatever rules for whatever game. You have to expect that. In fact you seem to be criticising the contributors for commenting on some aspects of the game, but not yours. That seems to me a bit ... strange...

Personally, and I expect that to be typical of most people in this, I was just happy they were there and my attitude is that I should not nitpick with someone doing a great job that I could not/will not/am too lazy to do myself. The typos mattered little compared to the fact the scenarios were there, who am I to start nitpicking with someone doing a large job on pleasing my cravings? That would be low indeed. Instead I try to help correct mistakes, such as rivers flowing the wrong way on the map, for EB2, and enjoy EB.

Now, I was on a break from EB back then, but did you actually make a thread/post asking for feedback? I am certain some of those I myself have debated with would come up with some. But seeing as you did the job, it may just be that they were grateful like me. If you want feedback, ask for it. Say, "Guys, I made the historical scenarios, spending a lot of effort on them, will you please look through them, play them and give me some feedback?". You cannot just lean back and expect people to give you what you want in my experience, nowhere in life can you- never, unless they know what you want. This of course assumes you did not ask, which it looks to me as if you did not.

In fact if this is your response to someone actually giving you feedback and appreciation, I would not hold my breath for more were I you. The Veterinarian Society would loose a future member.

Notice that though the last part takes up most of the text i typed to try and explain my thoughts and perhaps explain the lack of response, the largest part of this is supposed to be gratitude. Thanks again for doing them, and best of luck in your studies.

[Leviathan DarklyCute]

Well abou just release the ones you're almost done with, I would care.

[Phalanx300]

Agreed, I really like the Historical battles, also good for army ideas and to get a idea of how such armies were composed.:2thumbsup:

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Charming. It feels so good to witness your utter contempt for us, once more.

I thought it was an honest and good answer to a question. The good news is that if you don't like it you can always return it for the money you paid.

[Tollheit]

The good news is that if you don't like it you can always return it for the money you paid.
Oh, can I? I don't think so. In case you didn't notice, "it" is not EB, but insults and spite. I fear I might not be allowed to respond in kind.

[Macilrille]

I am afraid I cannot agree with any of you, but there is obviously a history here that I am unaware off. I suspect we should calm ourselves slightly or risk a locking.

[athanaric]

Oh, can I? I don't think so. In case you didn't notice, "it" is not EB, but insults and spite. I fear I might not be allowed to respond in kind.

I don't think abou wanted to insult people... Mind you, there have been some err... strange requests on these fora. And hundreds of people asking basically the same few questions gets frustrating at some point.

I like the historical battles very much, although I don't play them often. It is very interesting to read the descriptions and view the army setup as well as the recreation of the battlefield.

That said, I support what Macilrille posted.

[Novellus]

Well, thank you Abou, for the work you have put into the historical battles. Feedback or not, they are still very much appreciated. And when looking at the historical research, reading the outcomes is about as interesting as playing the battles themselves.

[bovi]

Now, I was on a break from EB back then, but did you actually make a thread/post asking for feedback? I am certain some of those I myself have debated with would come up with some. But seeing as you did the job, it may just be that they were grateful like me. If you want feedback, ask for it. Say, "Guys, I made the historical scenarios, spending a lot of effort on them, will you please look through them, play them and give me some feedback?". You cannot just lean back and expect people to give you what you want in my experience, nowhere in life can you- never, unless they know what you want. This of course assumes you did not ask, which it looks to me as if you did not.
See this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=98200&highlight=historical+battle).

[ziegenpeter]

I would play historical battles if they were implemented in a serie* and framed in some historical explanations/rendered movies.
A bit like the MTW2 tutorial. But of course its way to much work.

*lets say "The rising of CAVIS JVLIVS CAESAR"