View Full Version : What are the main things you want to see fixed from EB1 in EB2???
TheLastDays
04-30-2011, 23:10
Yeah the roving defenders are definitely fun ^^
Well yeah the reason I didn't mention campaign AI is that in RTW it's hardcoded if I understood that correctly. In MTW it's somewhat moddable so we might see an improvement. And recruitment pools might also make things more balanced - I have high hopes :)
XSamatan
05-02-2011, 11:02
Both CAI and the AI's recruitment were hardcoded in RTW, both will be changed in EB2 within the limits of MTW2'S engine.
XSamatan
LusitanianWolf
05-03-2011, 18:49
-> More Factions (check :) )
- > No more clone wars and lots of diversity (check from what I've seen from the amasing previews ^^ )
-> AI factions acting more historically at least at the early campain (you know, romans fighting carties or at least conquering sicily instead of early Holy Roman Empire with Extraordinary spamming)
-> More flexibility for the player do recreate history (no being able to recruit lusitanian units outside iberia is a late campain disrupter, maybe some kind of slow colonial building that can recruit some of the more iconic factionals or "what if" reforms?)
- > Less Spamming and more historical compositions (check from what I know from M2TW's unit replenishment rate)
-> Economic Warfare being usefull (dunno if will be possible with AI limits and script needing :embarassed: )
-> Less Siege Total War ( I gess that's impossible due to engine :no: )
- > Field Battles more relevant to campain development (unit replenishment rates will help but if possible, a script that decreases happiness from losing side settlements making some rebel would make them much more interesting. Romans didnt need to siege the whole seleucid empire to disrupt it, same for Alexander's conquests, but again don't know if that is possible :help:). Spoils of war should also help (some cash bonus to represent at least taking weapons from dead enemies and suply apropriating).
Nightbringer
05-06-2011, 02:15
What I want is less stack spam and more historical army composition (or at least less stacks of all elite troops from the ai). That will make me very very happy and it should work out well since m2tw AoR makes this possible to do.
war is hell
05-06-2011, 14:43
It's weird you guys get elites spamed at you. In my Casse campaign all I've done is fight Roman and Gallic rabble, usually ahistorical mercenaries for the Romans. Finally Carthage shipped over a couple of elite african stacks onto the Italian peninsula which is making for a good fight.
I think we would all like to see less, but more meaningful battles with huge armies. Losing a field army should be devastating, settlements should be more willing to surrender if the odds are overwhelmingly against them so you don't have to siege the entire Arche Seleukeia like LW said.
There is nothing I find more obnoxious than getting depleted rabble thrown at me from all directions at every turn. 2-3 depleted merc units over here, 2-3 levies over there, 2-3 units of rabble try to siege x settlement with overwhelming odds against them etc.
Of course the EB team can only do so much and we thank them for their hard work and dedication.:cool:
fomalhaut
05-06-2011, 21:11
i will never forget when Byzantion was besieged by, literally, wait for it... 6 Syrian Archers. 7 total with general... so a Syrian Rock Band and their manager came and besieged the most heavily defended city in my Confederacy...
and yeah in my ongoing Aedui campaign Suebii is throwing nothing but garbage at me, i spend more time cleaning up than maneuvering. I want to fight lines of Pikemen, scary werewolves, black painted dudes, whatever. but nope, levy spearmen... 5000 of them... every turn... ughhhh.
but these issues will be fixed, the recruitment system is much better. most of the time spent probably is the debates and tweaking on how often a certain unit should respawn, from where, why, etc. a very fine balance must be kept.
TheLastDays
05-07-2011, 06:11
the thing is... for example, when I play a Romani campaign and start campaigning against the Gauls I get to fight a few (2-3) strong armies, they include spears, plenty of swords, Gaesatae, Solduros, some of those druids... fun stuff... I defeat these 3 armies and continue campaigning. Now, if I just rush over them now, what do you expect? They throw plenty of levies against me, spearmen of course, that's actually to some extent, historically accurate. If the standing soldiers of a nation/people were defeated and killed/captured, what do you expect? Where should new elites come from, in reality? They can't come out of nowhere, so if a people like the Gauls isn't ready to submit after their standing or elite armies are defeated they would raise those farmers, workers, etc. and send them to battle with a spear, which is relatively cost effective and it's all you can do, if your enemy doesn't give you room to breathe...
Now, I'm not saying the recruitment system of EB I is perfect, it has major flaws (most of them coming of the RTW engine) but it's not THAT bad and big armies of levies coming from a practically defeated foe is actually historically more accurate than elite spam stacks ;) - and with the possibilities of M2TW it should get better, so let's be positive :)
fomalhaut
05-07-2011, 07:04
that's definitely true and i agree, but this was a Suebii at the height of their power, not a desperate last stand...
The map plays a large part in the early expansion... having enough settlement in the right places and some parts of map more difficult to get to from others would help but not sure what EB2 map looks like in close details yet. From what I understand AI often decides on expansion by distance as calculated by the engine which results aren't as obvious as it sometimes seems looking at the map. That would do wonderfully to help make it more fun. I've so many times seen factions reach areas which would be very weird in history. Of course things will go off track eventually but its annoying when its only turn 20. The new economic and colonial system might help there.
Also I really hope they make all factions re-emergent factions if rebellion happens in their core territories.
TheLastDays
05-07-2011, 07:56
I think they have already ruled out reemerging for all factions
Horatius Flaccus
05-07-2011, 12:30
Apparently it is possible to let all factions be re-emergent.
TheLastDays
05-07-2011, 13:10
Yes but for some it wouldn't make sense. The Ptolemaics for example were rather foreign rulers themselves and in a rebellion of native egyptian population it is highly unlikely they would reinstate the greek rulers...
Horatius Flaccus
05-07-2011, 20:06
True, but for a lot of factions it would make sense. There are only a few factions where there are foreign rulers ruling a native population (Ptolemaioi, Seleukia and Pontus are the only ones I can think of right now).
Even in the cases where foreign based culture ruled larger population of natives and were themselves in turn conquered it wouldn't be surprising that the first rebellion was led by a member of the former ruling caste unless a total purge was done... but that is difficult as often the former rulers intermarried with the locals and the former 'foreign' systems seem more familiar to the people who are rebelling than the new imposed ideas of the latest rulers.
So the example if Ptolemaioi were conquered by Rome... then a core region revolts- that chances that it is a totally Egyptian revolt without any Ptolemaioi influences seem very slim. With Seleukia and other descendents of Alexander's empire its more difficult because which regions should count as "core" and most of the culture had some influences from language and culture from Alexander but after 100 years of foreign rule (non-Greek) and then a revolt... would Seleukia really be restored? In that case it seems questionable but that makes it more a matter of time than potential and since the timeline is relatively short for EB2 and the time from when Ptolemaioi or Seleukia might be conquered to the end is even shorter so I don't see why not.
fomalhaut
05-07-2011, 22:20
sounds far too complicated.
something more significant than roving bandits should be implemented though, i auto_win aphistemaioi because i know they are totally artificial, there as a throwaway game mechanic left over from RTW. if my actions lead to a legitimate revolt or uprising then it would have significance and impetus to get rid of it. aphistemaioi just don't cut it.
Let's hope that the new "unit replacement" system will limit the elite stacks of doom somewhat.
fomalhaut
05-08-2011, 21:38
it will. they will have a long replenishment rate, i'd guess at least 8 seasons
I do not know about "fixed". Perhaps wrong word. But my main gripe about eb is that Pontos can not recruit phalanx in Pella. & Segesta should be harder to take.
Moslty my complaints about EB are things the team can do nothing about, like sick generals making ships slower, that sort of thing.
sounds far too complicated.
something more significant than roving bandits should be implemented though, i auto_win aphistemaioi because i know they are totally artificial, there as a throwaway game mechanic left over from RTW. if my actions lead to a legitimate revolt or uprising then it would have significance and impetus to get rid of it. aphistemaioi just don't cut it.
Its actually not that complicated. Just deciding which core regions qualify and which factions should be re-emergent. With MTW2 might even be able to add a counter so if a region hasn't changed hands in 100 turns its now effectively assimilated and there is nothing to inspire a revolt.
Seems better than larger empires losing a couple provinces here or there and always quickly recapturing them. At least some spawned larger stacks and renewed faction would be much more interesting and in more cases than not seems plausible for the span of EB2.
like sick generals making ships slower, that sort of thing. +1 ever circumnavigated Arabia with a FM who got all of those Traits just after passing Mecca -.-
ziegenpeter
05-09-2011, 23:26
More flexibility for the player do recreate history (no being able to recruit lusitanian units outside iberia is a late campain disrupter, maybe some kind of slow colonial building that can recruit some of the more iconic factionals or "what if" reforms?) I totally agree with that!
Or at least some more higher tier regional units, maybe with a very low replenish rate?
True, but for a lot of factions it would make sense. There are only a few factions where there are foreign rulers ruling a native population (Ptolemaioi, Seleukia and Pontus are the only ones I can think of right now).
I don't know. I guess if the occupant screws up, some macedonian noble offspring, who claims to be a ptolomaic descendant, can seize the moment?
With Seleukia and other descendents of Alexander's empire its more difficult because which regions should count as "core". I'd say Anticheia, Seleukeia and perhaps a few other cities in syria.
fomalhaut
05-09-2011, 23:48
i'd say the factionals outside of homeland should be dealt with very carefully, i agree with the concept i realllllly do, but it should be super low replenishment rate for scortamareva just even outside the Pyrenes
TheLastDays
05-10-2011, 15:58
Yeah, you'd have to migrate an entire population to effectively be able to recruit armies from a place where none of your people have lived before...
And about reemergence... it depends on what regions you would count as core... for teh Romani for example, if Rome would fall to, say, Gaulish hordes and a few decades down the road the Samnites revolted against the barbarian overlords it's highly unlikely they would reinstute Rome after winning their independence from the Gauls.
Rome it might be enough to have Rome and just 1 other region able to be the trigger for re-emergence. As it might not be necessary to have exact survivors but the descendents of some survivors who use the displeasure with current rulers as a bid to power based on old legends. Conquered peoples in revolt often adopt legends of more victories ancestors even if they weren't exactly the same people. Realistically the rebellion is likely to still be put down but at least its going to be more difficult than a single siege when a faction which can recruit its own troops and move aggressively out from its region is the revolter compared to rebels.
What are the most famous revolts against Rome? Slave Revolt, Jewish Revolt, Boudicca Revolt, Palmyra Revolt, Arminius and Teutborg Forest... probably more but that is just a short list that could somewhat justify at least some re-emergent factions. Slave Revolt and Jewish Revolt excluded they could be represented as regular rebels I suppose.
Some other factions that didn't historically might well have had been conditions right. Since we are talking about break down in order and revolt anyway we are assuming conditions are right or more so than they were historically where Rome for the span of regions and eras it ruled actually faced surprisingly few revolts at least until later years.
As for factional units outside of the factions birthplace... I think if certain level of colonial building is reached it makes sense. It might not be actual people immigrating but locals trained in the way of the conquers fighting style. Which seems more plausible than large migrations over entire continents.
moonburn
05-12-2011, 04:33
Some other factions that didn't historically might well have had been conditions right. Since we are talking about break down in order and revolt anyway we are assuming conditions are right or more so than they were historically where Rome for the span of regions and eras it ruled actually faced surprisingly few revolts at least until later years.
yeah right thats why caius julius complained about the lusitanians every year going on the warpath 100 years after they had been oficially subdued
roman propaganda where everyone is happy doesn´t mean it was like that for every rebellion they admited it was to glorify someone or badmouth others teutenberg was considered a backstab and the same for the palmyreans the romans didn´t had nominal control over the chattii or the palmyreans
the maccabian revolts glorified flavius spartacus revolt glorified the 3 great generals fighting against him crassus pompeii and gaius julius and so forth
So you are supporting re-emergent factions?
TheLastDays
05-13-2011, 07:54
The Team already said there will be reemergent factions, just not all of them
The Team already said there will be reemergent factions, just not all of them
Right... this is just discussing what the criteria should be for which ones can re-emerge? Personally I think nearly all of them should be able to at least for a certain length of time. I can see the point of arguments that if foreign rulers had been replaced by new ruling caste why would a revolt re-install formerly foreign rulers but that seems less of an issue than it might seem initially due to above points.
Tellos Athenaios
05-15-2011, 00:39
The Team already said there will be reemergent factions, just not all of them
I didn't know that we had? Or did we?
fomalhaut
05-15-2011, 09:09
i don't recall that and i'm pretty keen on my EB lurking. i think it's been said "we're looking into possibilities"
TheLastDays
05-16-2011, 18:07
Ah well you guys play tricks on our mind, I wouldn't be surprised if you went back to your old posts, edited something into or out of them just for the laughs of confusing us :-P
Anyway... Ichon, I'm not sure if it's possible to give reemergence a time limit, like "this faction is only qualified for reemergence for 20 turns after being destroyed"
It is entirely possible as the only way you can have faction re-emergence is through scripting, which allows us to control lots of things.
stratigos vasilios
05-17-2011, 09:18
Bobbin will 'The People in Flight' option be used? Or will it be dependent on the faction similar to the discussion we're having on re-emerging factions?
Populus Romanus
05-17-2011, 14:32
I doubt they will use The People in Flight. It sounds very ahistorical to me. On another note, can reemergent factions be forced to attack the settlement whose province they spawn in? It would be pretty stupid if the Makedonians revolt only to ignore Pella and go after Serdike. Also, how strong would reemergent factions be? I assume pretty weak. And finally, is it possible to make the spawning armies smaller the longer the province has been occupied?
Bobbin will 'The People in Flight' option be used? Or will it be dependent on the faction similar to the discussion we're having on re-emerging factions?
Unlikely, it's the single most hated feature of the horde mechanic among the team.
I doubt they will use The People in Flight. It sounds very ahistorical to me. On another note, can reemergent factions be forced to attack the settlement whose province they spawn in? It would be pretty stupid if the Makedonians revolt only to ignore Pella and go after Serdike. Also, how strong would reemergent factions be? I assume pretty weak. And finally, is it possible to make the spawning armies smaller the longer the province has been occupied?
Yes they can. I cannot answer any more because we haven't worked on reemergent factions yet, all I am doing is telling people that it is possible and that we will want to include it in EBII.
The main thing I am looking forward to improving in EB2 is taking advantage of the better AI potential of M2TW. The team could change nothing in EB1 and just switching the engine would make the port totally worth it. If it is more stable, that will be a plus too.
Beyond that, one thing I would like but probaby won't get is a reduction in the proportion of sieges to field battles. I just don't find TW sieges - at least as the attacker - as fun as field battles. I don't know how you could go about this, except by lowering the density of settlements. The BI map had fewer settlements and seemed to lead to more of an emphasis on field battles.
With all the permanent stone forts representing smaller cities, sieges will probably become even more numerous. Though EB is about realism and ancient warfare was more about sieges then about field battles.
moonburn
05-23-2011, 02:11
actually rahl one field batle and the wars would be over most of the times sieges were not cost effective and unleass some "cheating" appeared for the taking (like spies opening the gates) most of the times the only reason to besiege was to force a field batle win the day and present the terms
even when you managed after much sacrifice to take over a city you would need to spend fortunes bribing important people and expend alot of humanpower resources to keep the city under control that was one of the antigonid problems when they faced the romans they had too many garrisons scatered around places like athens and whatever
in medieval total war the rate of sucefull sieges is a disgrace in rl it was very rare for a castle to fall because of a direct attack or even a walled city it was starving and using the catapults to send dead animals into the place hoping that disease made them surrender before the disease caught your own men and you would be forçed to pull back for health reasons
tho I wonder how they will handle PSF in detail it could be that they repreent them without walls eg.
And I would not worry toomuch about PSFs, in my brittannia campaign they were empty most of the time and I was the only one actually careing about them.(ok they were not empty all the time and gave the AI lords shelter while I conquered all of their Settlements :D, but the important ones were empty long enough to sneak in a lord and some mercs ^^)
ziegenpeter
05-23-2011, 12:34
actually rahl one field batle and the wars would be over most of the times sieges were not cost effective and unleass some "cheating" appeared for the taking (like spies opening the gates) most of the times the only reason to besiege was to force a field batle win the day and present the terms
What??? Is this a troll attempt?
There are enough mechanics in place that if you don't want many siege battles that are decisive there are quite numerous ways to avoid them in MTW2. AI likes to station an army outside walls which can draw out enemies, etc.
Though it would be nice to have the length of time a city can withstand a siege be dependent on more buildings than just the walls. Basic walls should give very limited extra time to a siege defense before forcing surrender. Higher port facilities, grain, and water storages that can be built should make more of a difference. Even with how slow armies move sieges over 12 turns being common to force a field battle is too much. 3-6 turns should be more than enough without concentrated building program of storages.
Many of the regions being represented as a single city is also misleading when the battle for the province actually takes several fights. Playing on VH with the AI getting decent bonuses the majority of decisive battles occur outside of cities for me. Of course that is by my choice sometimes where I simply don't attack well garrisoned cities unless absolutely necessary but that means having to destroy the AI in the field. In most cases that also means meeting attacking enemy armies in the field and not waiting for them to lay siege where I find the mechanics greatly favor the player. Siege battles for attacking AI are greatly unbalanced in favor of the player.
FinnishedBarbarian
05-25-2011, 12:46
Concerning siege battles/open field engagements ratio on eb1, the mechanic which gives rationing/starving trait on enemy territory should be applied also to the armies on friendly territory. Supplying armies with thousands of men and animals is great challenge even on friendly territory. Armies on friendly province should lose well supplied trait after 2 turns rationing should come after 4 and so forth (stainless steel has this feature).
Problem with sieges lies also in (hardcoded?)mechanics which don't take into account the size of the besieged army, for example the Caesar's victory in alesia might have been utter defeat had the besieged gallic force been smaller and the roman's unable to defeat the garrison and the gauls besieging themselves.
Assaulting city was dangerous game which rarely led to success this has been mentioned about 1 billion times, but in total war games it's something of a necessity, therefore defenders morale should be greatly reduced and towers made even deadlier to simulate the great losses but also giving attacker a chance to succeed on assault given that besieger has usually numbers/quality edge.
Now the situation favors sieged side (well atleast human player) whose troops morale remains as high as in field engagement. Assaulting cities should usually be pyrhic victories where you gain territory but risk losing great part of your forces and at worst case scenario being besieged in city you just took with great losses!
Populus Romanus
05-26-2011, 05:41
Hello FinnishedBarbarian!
FinnishedBarbarian
05-26-2011, 10:27
Oh forgot to mentioning that being my first post, so hopefully it had some value to discussion.
More what I hope to see on eb2:
Hopefully team has considered implementing some mechanics which would cause unrest in certain recruitment cases for example machimoi and over recruitment of regional troops. Although the recruitment pools are going to be great help in stopping spamming elites the restrictions shouldn't be applied to aforementioned cases, both machimoi and regional levy troops were raised in great numbers, but at cost of unrest when they were used to other than defence of their homelands. So you should be able to still raise great numbers of these un-reliable units, but at cost of risking a revolt in regions from which they are recruited.
Well there's about 10 bigger problems I'd like having different from eb1 (which is modification masterpiece even with those faults that are mostly caused by hardcoding). I have high hopes that majority of problems will be solved, but being realistic I expect that couple of annoing features can't be fixed.
Hello FinnishedBarbarian!
Thanks for the welcome!
vollorix
05-26-2011, 18:44
Don´t know about MIC´s in EB2 on MTW2 engine, but won´t happieness/law penalties to "auxilla" buildings do the job? The AI will recruit units, doesn´t matter how you punish it; also, if those punishments aren´t implemented in the game engine, but simply scripted, the AI won´t "understand" why this is happenning, and therefore continue to do as programed.
FinnishedBarbarian
05-27-2011, 00:08
Don´t know about MIC´s in EB2 on MTW2 engine, but won´t happieness/law penalties to "auxilla" buildings do the job? The AI will recruit units, doesn´t matter how you punish it; also, if those punishments aren´t implemented in the game engine, but simply scripted, the AI won´t "understand" why this is happenning, and therefore continue to do as programed.
Yes, I thought about the option of adding happiness/law penalties to auxilia buildings, but that wouldn't really fix the problem 'cause it makes no sense to give penalties for mere ability to raise local troops. Unreast caused by recruitment happened more often in ancient times after the locals had seen some service in conquerors armies and achieving necessary skills to resist forced recruitment/trying to free themselves from oppressor.
Good examples would be batavians and machimoi who revolted only after gaining skills necessary to attempt overthrowing ptolemy's, batavians revolted after romans disbanded some veteran batavi (emperors bodyguard unit?) and romans started to demand more auxilias than the arrangement they had made stipulated the batavi had to provide.
If mechanics prevent unrest caused by recruitment I would suggest script which would create rebel troops (maybe even fullstack next to city) in provinces where regionals have been over recruited this would way both player and AI would be punished from recruiting fullstacks of regionals.
Well maybe the recruitment pools are enough to address this problem, although I suspect then the problem would be goverment system which would need to recognize difference between client kingdoms abilities (clients would be more willing to raise armies than occupied locals whose lands are being distributed amongst settlers) to recruit locals compared to direct governing of province.
Also the garrison bonus to cities happiness should be raised if anyway possible, apperantly it is hardcoded feature 'cause of the way the bonus is determined (how many % garrison is of city's population). This is only problem in recently conquered provinces which are occupied (not reducing population) and have huge population/high squalor/belong to different culture, extermination was quite rare in antiquity and cities didn't need to be garrisoned with tens of thousands of troops. One way to address this problem would be adding trait to general conquering city which would help to stabilize the province.
* the giant Trees.
maybe my concern is anyway not a problem with using the M2TW engine...don´t know M2TW and only would buy it for running EB II - and i´m soo curious about it.
but will those dense forests with those giant trees (bigger than horses) dissappear in EB II?
..i know there is an interesting way to get rid of them for EB 1.2 too - from Centurio Nixalsverdrus - but again started a campaign and dont want to try this out in the middle of a campaign.
* another thing which i find a bit annoying: (e.g. in my last KH campaign) when i had to ship important Generals to somewhere - the travel time was on sea extended to such an extent as well as on land. (winter campaigning restricted for all KH family members) ..so the duration of sea travels was really much to long. don´t know now if this is resolvable.? ..dont no nothing about programming and whatnot.
besides - EB is the greatest pc game i ever played - and can only thank you guys for this great work. :thumbsup:
restricting Navalmovement in winter is actually not that unreasonable. As winter was also known as stormyseason and everyone who had the option avoided seafareing during winter. - Hegemony makes great use of this by simply damageing all ships that are on open sea or moveing during winter.
Alas you're totally right when consideringother factions have summer as "stay at home"-season, there it really gets silly. And much more annoying is that a generals Health also affects seafareing, which really is silly. I'm not exactlysure how it's done in M2TW but imho itwould be best to just have the acting admiral influence the speed of a navy.
vollorix
05-28-2011, 12:12
The "move_character" cheat should help you out of all those problems, don´t you think? And since those are "admirals" you are moving around there shouldn´t be any problem with names.
@Ca Putt - well yea that is definitely a point - winter is no season for sailing ..but i remember a sea travel (just because of the winter campaigning restriction of that one fella ..maybe there was also some "tired" character trait or something like that involved) like from Athenai to Syracousai..it took more then a year ...not to speak from a journey to massalia.
without family members - is no problem. but one would need them too. ...specific character traits of FM´s are in that case i find just disturbing ...i mean when they only sit in the fleet - why should they affect the duration of the journey.
yes only the admirals influence for the speed would be nice.
@vollorix - hm, i never used "move_character" ..how does this work? ..like beaming one character from one moment to the other to any place? ..or can you do this then for a "normal" travel duration?
i meant that as some thing (if resolvable) that would be nice to think over it to change.
actually dont wanna use cheats (except for avoiding CTD´s like decrease population in rebellious settlements)
XSamatan
05-28-2011, 17:01
@Kleitos:
I wrote a guide about this topic some time ago, maybe it can help you (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?132960-Guide-How-to-use-move_character-in-EB).
XSamatan
vollorix
05-28-2011, 17:06
You want a character move somewhere on the map for whatever reasons ( realism, for instance: a unit of rider bodyguards won´t need a year to get from Rome to Numantia; not even a legion would^^ ). It works instantly, like magic - faster then beaming, i´d say... Just search on the forums for all the details ( what not to do to prevent CTD, etc. )
There are also the increased movement points for the factions done in couple of mods, but that is something different ( apperently one can increase the moving points of characters significantly, moding specific files ).
without family members - is no problem. but one would need them too. ...specific character traits of FM´s are in that case i find just disturbing ...i mean when they only sit in the fleet - why should they affect the duration of the journey.
Maybe taking command of the fleet and giving wired orders ( in case they are somehow mad, ill or whatever ). Or perhaps because their harem wasn´t on board in time? Or probably because the ships had to drop anchor way too often because those VIP´s became sea sick? Who knows? ;)
FinnishedBarbarian
05-28-2011, 17:47
@Ca Putt - well yea that is definitely a point - winter is no season for sailing ..but i remember a sea travel (just because of the winter campaigning restriction of that one fella ..maybe there was also some "tired" character trait or something like that involved) like from Athenai to Syracousai..it took more then a year ...not to speak from a journey to massalia.
without family members - is no problem. but one would need them too. ...specific character traits of FM´s are in that case i find just disturbing ...i mean when they only sit in the fleet - why should they affect the duration of the journey.
yes only the admirals influence for the speed would be nice.
@vollorix - hm, i never used "move_character" ..how does this work? ..like beaming one character from one moment to the other to any place? ..or can you do this then for a "normal" travel duration?
i meant that as some thing (if resolvable) that would be nice to think over it to change.
actually dont wanna use cheats (except for avoiding CTD´s like decrease population in rebellious settlements)
Offtopic
It works as sort of a beaming/teleportation and I think that in some cases it shouldn't be considered cheating, for example in moving agents to a island (rhodes/britain) there was civilian transportation during antique so it shouldn't be necessary to build a fleet to transport single diplomat to a island. other ways I use it are unselfish like transporting koinons troops from rhodes to help them hold some distant province that has rebelled to them.
You have to first (using console) toggle fog of war of (toggle_fow) then look for a spot where want to move the character holding mouse over the spot (it has to be empty of other characters, also transporting directly to a city doesn't work) enter "show_cursorstat" which gives you the coordinates. After that you just need to enter "move_character "characters_name" and coordinates for example 93,115.
Back to the topic
Family members bodyguards should be toned down a bit, now they form completely unrealistic heavy cavalry reserve (this conserns mostly hellenes and carthigians because both like to use their family members as extra heavy cavalry), kings and heirs should of course have large cavalry retinue but that every FM in for example seleucid empire has 50-70 somathophylakes (if we compare the games unit strength to real size of armies of time that would give us about 500-700 somathophylakes) is complete unrealistic. Sweboz and pritanoi generals (both are going to have infantry bodyguards) unit numbers are more realistic because in germanic and celtic (atleast in early era) warfare first and foremost purpose of a general was to lead other warriors by his own example in thick of a fighting.
This change depents mostly on battle AI, if team can't make AI generals less suicidal then they will stay likely same as in eb1.
thank you guys :-) ..i put that guide to my EB favorites - good to know if needed - and try it out sometime.
(already have a lot of them - since this game is so complex - until now it never got boring)
..but actually i didnt mean that for this version ..rather if this maybe can be changed in EB II without using the cheats.
do you know if with M2TW as engine this giant trees would be a thing of the past?
I've thought about the AI generals being so suicidal alot and it seems difficult to resolve since even with best Germanicus BAI the generals still often do this.
The current way generals are portrayed is usually as some special heavy cavalry unit. Which isn't always so far off but in the game mechanics gives them quite disproportionate power.
It seems to me that increasing BG defense quite high while also lowering charge value while giving decent melee but not crazy high- base 3 or 4 so reach 6-7 with xp would be the best way.
Since then the generals wouldn't be continual and endless chargers who rarely win a battle by fighting melee but win by charging 500 to death and then renew their numbers for the next battle. While the AI trying to use the powerful charge kills its commander off giving the entire army penalties.
So then you could use BG to anchor a wavering point in the line as the very high defense wouldn't immediately imperil the general and the BG could still have some charge effect but more limited. As the BG protect the commander they wouldn't necessarily always be focused on killing as many enemy as possible.
Also while BG would be deadly in melee combat due to their high defense and decent attack they wouldn't be completely overwhelming like they can be now with a single charge killing 50% of a unit in a few seconds. (referring to MTW2).
Most important is that the AI would have much higher chances of preserving its generals and keeping the army morale up and the generals command bonuses intact. So many heroic victories I've won and seen in others screenshots are due to the suicidal generals of the AI and the massive repeating charges of players own general.
So battles get much tougher for players without having any other artificial bonuses to AI just by keeping their generals alive much longer and not having players use a single general to repeatedly charge and get 200 kills in battle after battle just due to charge. BG might have 200 kills at the end of a battle still but 100 from charge and 100 from melee which happens at a much slower rate would mean BG's affect on battle overall is becoming more about morale and less about being the most powerful unit on the battlefield in its own right. AI might still send its general ahead foolishly but with high defense can pull him out before death and if player wastes alot of time pursuing there is alot lower guarantee of a quick kill.
do you know if with M2TW as engine this giant trees would be a thing of the past?
Giant trees that block view as in RTW you mean? I haven't seen that in MTW2 though maybe it exists on some part of the map but I would say it seems lower though there are some thick forest tops you have to lower beneath to see properly the huge tree trunks as in RTW aren't around to block view even right next to the ground.
There are no giant trees in M2TW from what I've seen.
There are no giant trees in M2TW from what I've seen.
Not yet!
NikosMaximilian
06-01-2011, 05:41
I haven't played M2TW, and I probably won't buy it until EB2 is released, so I apologise for any (uninformed) mistake. Also I understand that there are many things that are harcoded by CA and can't be changed, so this is probably a sketch about some things.
- The first and most important: reduce the number of CTD. Even after following some of the advices posted in the forum, and reducing their number, they're annoying.
- Strategic: A smarter AI that selects its targets better (Makedon going into the Baltic? Hay into the steppes?). I don't know if this can be done, but somehow force it to follow a smarter, more realistic expansion, choosing richer cities.
- Naval Invasions: EB on BI seemed a little better on this. Otherwise, Baleares, Sardinia, Corsica, Krete and Rhodos belong to the same faction in whether it's 272BC or 14BC (unless the player attacks them).
- I know this won't be a popular opinion since most players seem to choose the "barbarian" or Hellenic factions, but I would like to see the Nomadic factions empowered, specially in their homelands. If possible a larger battlemap, with more stamina for horse archers so they can apply their tactics. Or maybe the ability to attack, and withdraw at any moment without losing the battle (as long as you have movement points left in the strategic map).
- Make more mercenaries available to Saka, Sauro and maybe Pahlava, and make secondary the need of a growing city to recruit, only elites maybe. Most of the steppe cities grow very slowly compared to other regions and that's historically accurate, but the nomads didn't recruit in the way other civilizations did. Their recruitment pool wasn't centered in a settlement, it was spread among those vast lands. It would be a better way to represent the nomadic confederations and their goals, which in many cases the motivation was looting, pillaging and plunder. You've got the money, you recruit them, now go and sack some rich city to pay for their loyalty upkeep. Military success means gold and more raids, failure means disbanding, pretty much like the Huns.
- This is an animation thing and more of a suggestion. Could javelin throwing units have more range when running? Obviously you can throw a javelin further if you gain momentum in a run-up. Likewise, units in a defensive, stationary position should have their range reduced (unless on higher ground than the intended target).
- Hopefully minor things like the uber-pirate stacks in the Baltic won't happen.
Oh, and thank you guys for such a terrific effort and nice game! Congratulations from the land of silver, keep up the great work! :bow:
There are no giant trees in M2TW from what I've seen.
well thats good to hear
@NikosMaximilian: more stamina for horse archers? ..i´d love the Pahlava campaign (and now using with the early HAY campaign the same tactics) but those horse archers have the best stamina anyway - battle need micromanaging yes - but these horse archer troops are nearly invincible. ..doing much damage, suffering almost no casualities. ..last blow (if not meant as hitattack) can be done with FM´s or those great Yancai Uazdaettae (very good stamina and good spear/charge attack) ..available for almost every faction in two provinces northeast of the Hyrcanium Mare.
- The first and most important: reduce the number of CTD. Even after following some of the advices posted in the forum, and reducing their number, they're annoying.
This was an issue with RTW so we couldn't do anything about it. Thankfully M2TW is a lot more stable, so it doesn't happen anymore.
- Strategic: A smarter AI that selects its targets better (Makedon going into the Baltic? Hay into the steppes?). I don't know if this can be done, but somehow force it to follow a smarter, more realistic expansion, choosing richer cities.
I believe things can be done to encourage faction expansion along certain routes although we haven't really looked into it yet.
- Naval Invasions: EB on BI seemed a little better on this. Otherwise, Baleares, Sardinia, Corsica, Krete and Rhodos belong to the same faction in whether it's 272BC or 14BC (unless the player attacks them).
Yep, the AI in M2TW is a lot better at naval invasions than in RTW.
- I know this won't be a popular opinion since most players seem to choose the "barbarian" or Hellenic factions, but I would like to see the Nomadic factions empowered, specially in their homelands. If possible a larger battlemap, with more stamina for horse archers so they can apply their tactics. Or maybe the ability to attack, and withdraw at any moment without losing the battle (as long as you have movement points left in the strategic map).
These aren't things we can mod and horse archers already get the best stamina possible.
- Make more mercenaries available to Saka, Sauro and maybe Pahlava, and make secondary the need of a growing city to recruit, only elites maybe. Most of the steppe cities grow very slowly compared to other regions and that's historically accurate, but the nomads didn't recruit in the way other civilizations did. Their recruitment pool wasn't centered in a settlement, it was spread among those vast lands. It would be a better way to represent the nomadic confederations and their goals, which in many cases the motivation was looting, pillaging and plunder. You've got the money, you recruit them, now go and sack some rich city to pay for their loyalty upkeep. Military success means gold and more raids, failure means disbanding, pretty much like the Huns.
You will have to wait and see about recruitment but I can say it is a lot different from EB. Also I'm pretty sure the population in a settlement in the game is supposed to represent that of the whole province, not just the main city. M2TW doesn't subtract population when recruiting BTW, which should help as well.
- This is an animation thing and more of a suggestion. Could javelin throwing units have more range when running? Obviously you can throw a javelin further if you gain momentum in a run-up. Likewise, units in a defensive, stationary position should have their range reduced (unless on higher ground than the intended target).
Not possible.
- Hopefully minor things like the uber-pirate stacks in the Baltic won't happen.
We will try and prevent things like that happening in EBII.
Oh, and thank you guys for such a terrific effort and nice game! Congratulations from the land of silver, keep up the great work! :bow:
Thank you!
well thats good to hear
What is even better to hear is that makanyane and wilddog over on the TWC have cracked the vege_model files, so now we can have our own custom trees and shrubs in the game.:2thumbsup:
vollorix
06-04-2011, 19:21
What is even better to hear is that makanyane and wilddog over on the TWC have cracked the vege_model files, so now we can have our own custom trees and shrubs in the game
WOW! I knew it, i will buy my new pc only after EB2 comes out:laugh4:
stratigos vasilios
06-07-2011, 09:51
Not sure if this has been thrown up in this thread... Regarding the trade resources on the campaign map (i.e. furs, silk, grain, olive oil and amber), I'm hoping buildings are available to increase their trade value. Very similar to the trade buildings in the mod DLV, examples could be a silk mill or an olive oil grove. I can't remember if there were similar buildings in EBI, exam study does that to my memory...
Not sure if this has been thrown up in this thread... Regarding the trade resources on the campaign map (i.e. furs, silk, grain, olive oil and amber), I'm hoping buildings are available to increase their trade value. Very similar to the trade buildings in the mod DLV, examples could be a silk mill or an olive oil grove. I can't remember if there were similar buildings in EBI, exam study does that to my memory...
Individual trade resources cannot have their individual resource value increased. Building capabilities that affect trade value (there are two of them) affect all trade resources in a province. For example, if the Olive Grove increased trade value in a province by 10% if there is an Olive Oil resource, this 10% will increase the trade value of any other resources in the province. It is misleading to have a building concept that, by its description, gives the impression that only one resource will be improved, but in actual fact improves all trade resources in a province. In EBII buildings will be designed to reflect this.
Foot
stratigos vasilios
06-07-2011, 11:51
Individual trade resources cannot have their individual resource value increased. Building capabilities that affect trade value (there are two of them) affect all trade resources in a province. For example, if the Olive Grove increased trade value in a province by 10% if there is an Olive Oil resource, this 10% will increase the trade value of any other resources in the province. It is misleading to have a building concept that, by its description, gives the impression that only one resource will be improved, but in actual fact improves all trade resources in a province. In EBII buildings will be designed to reflect this.
Foot
Ahhh ok. For conversation purposes, let's use the silk mill as an example. It doesn't increase the trade 'power' of the silk resource, but the 'power' of the entire region. So the bonus isn't on silk itself but trade as a whole? (I know I've probably paraphrased what you've just said, but it'll sink in if I do this).
Ahhh ok. For conversation purposes, let's use the silk mill as an example. It doesn't increase the trade 'power' of the silk resource, but the 'power' of the entire region. So the bonus isn't on silk itself but trade as a whole? (I know I've probably paraphrased what you've just said, but it'll sink in if I do this).
That's the one. It makes the whole concept of buildings affecting specific resources difficult to handle. It also rather ruins the perspective of the player. A player, playing as the government of their faction, wouldn't be concerned with the construction of a silk mill - private ownership of production is really out of their hands and perspective - and so in EBII this player's perspective is going to be consistent and will define the buildings that are available. You won't construct buildings that produce things (that's not entirely true, but I'll keep the specifics secret for now), but will instead invest in buildings that secure trade through your region; protecting caravans from bandits, and merchant ships from pirates.
Foot
I very much like what you have said here, Foot! Keeping things consistent in terms of what exactly the player controls is a nice thought. Thank you for the info!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.