What are the main things you want to see fixed from EB1 in EB2???

[SlickNicaG69]

I got the idea for this thread from a poll I started regarding the making of EB2. Naturally, it developed into a discussion about the things in EB2 and how it will be different from EB1. Thus, with people so focused on the new things that will be present in EB2, I thought it would be productive to talk about the old things in EB1 that people are uncomfortable with, or dislike, and would like to see fixed in EB2. For is it not that things are made better by improving upon them and adjusting that which contains problems, rather than trying to make something completely new and different? So what are they?

To make things more clear, list your items and, if you want, explain your reasoning for such opinions after the list. Try to be specific. These are mine:

1) Battle Map Fighting (Yea they are elite, armored units, but come on, they are not supermen!)
2) Campaign AI (I offer an army-less, money-less, territory-less faction peace for nothing and they refuse with the attitude that they can still kick my @$$!)
3) Ending Date/Time period (Personally, I wish EB2 would be more "Imperial" than "Republican," but if it must be, at least go into it, don't stop at it's beginning)
*I think this one is especially relevant, for Rome did not stop growing until Trajan's days...
4) Illyria (Like Aristotle used to say, if Gaul, then why not Illyria???)
5) Or for that matter Numidia, Mauretania, Belgae, Aquitainia, Dacia, Scythia and Thrace! (These were all unique people with unique customs and heritages - I wouldn't put such "tribes" as Massalia, Crete, Rhodes, etc. as a faction because they only really comprised 1 single province/town and were part of a greater culture, not its embodiment)
6) New/more formation alignments... would be great to be able to deploy in triple line, or alexanders cavalry/phalanx, with a simple click... as the real generals of old used to do!

[Tellos Athenaios]

(1) What exactly? One-on-one units tend to last quite a while; but the right `push' or `shove' crushes even elite units like they're simply not there.
(2) Not our bug, essentially. It is a problem deep down in the core AI which is largely unaffected by what we can mod*
(3) Not going to happen; in fact if we are really pressed for unit slots we'd probably drop Imperial units altogether. As it is, Imperial reforms pretty much marks the death of the Republic as we know it in EB. No faction is remotely accurate in 14 AD as it is portrayed in EB: expansion, for one thing, is all wrong; and for many factions the depiction of internal structure and culture would be anachronistic (as these developed much more in the real world than is possible within the game) not to mention that units would be outdated, too.

[Arkhis]

1) Battle Map Fighting (Yea they are elite, armored units, but come on, they are not supermen!)
What do you mean by this?


2) Campaign AI (I offer an army-less, money-less, territory-less faction peace for nothing and they refuse with the attitude that they can still kick my @$$!)
Diplomacy in M2TW is still as shit as in Rome: TW, so it won't be any better, I fear it's hardcoded. That's why people use that forced diplomacy mod.


3) Ending Date/Time period (Personally, I wish EB2 would be more "Imperial" than "Republican," but if it must be, at least go into it, don't stop at it's beginning)
*I think this one is especially relevant, for Rome did not stop growing until Trajan's days...
The game is not about Rome alone ;). Besides, it already has over a thousand turns, that's REALLY long.


4) Illyria (Like Aristotle used to say, if Gaul, then why not Illyria???)
They're still working on the new factions, though I doubt any Illyrian tribe will be playable. You should look for the criteria for faction-inclusion on these forums and see if they fit any of those.


5) Or for that matter Numidia, Mauretania, Belgae, Dacia, and Thrace! (These were all unique people with unique customs and heritages - I wouldn't put such "tribes" as Massalia, Crete, Rhodes, etc. as a faction because they only really comprised 1 single province/town and were part of a greater culture, not its embodiment)
Again, they're still working on new factions, but you should read the previews, 'cause then you'd know that: Numidians are in, represented by the Kingdom of Massylia, and Dacians and Thracians are already in EB1, just check out the Getai.

Factions are political units, not cultural.


6) New/more formation alignments... would be great to be able to deploy in triple line, or alexanders cavalry/phalanx, with a simple click... as the real generals of old used do!
Hardcoded again, I fear.

Personally, the biggest issues I have are with the AI, and those should've been fixed by CA, but alas, the AI is still bad :(.

[athanaric]

Diplomacy in M2TW is still as shit as in Rome: TW, so it won't be any better, I fear it's hardcoded. That's why people use that forced diplomacy mod.
Actually, it's better. I've been playing TATW for some time and when I really started to beat up an evil faction, they came suing for peace despite still bordering me (didn't help them as their last settlements were taken by the AI Dwarven Empire, hehe).
M2TW's AI is still retarded but believe me it's an improvement over RTW's, at least on the campaign map.

[Epimetheus]

I'd like to see some improvements on the map in the middle-east. Specifically the incorrect locations of some of the settlements, such as Susa or Mazaka, as well as some geographic improvements to the Atropatene province. But this is mostly just nitpicking by a map freak.

[Foot]

I'd like to see some improvements on the map in the middle-east. Specifically the incorrect locations of some of the settlements, such as Susa or Mazaka, as well as some geographic improvements to the Atropatene province. But this is mostly just nitpicking by a map freak.

If you can be more specific and post your evidence that we got it wrong, that would be great. Note that translating a world that is not flat onto a map that is never going to be correct. But if you don't tell us how we've got it wrong (and back that up with some good evidence) then how are we going to know we got it wrong. Its all well and good for you to say "fix it", but we need to know what to fix and also the reasons why you think it needs to be fixed.

Foot

[SlickNicaG69]

Actually you're wrong about the formations being hardcoded... Rome Total Realism actually doesn't even have the default formations with exception of the single line formation... they have real, set formations such as triple apex, macedonian phalanx, etc... The reason I bring these things up is because I feel that if EB had the same type of Battle map style as RTR it would be nearly perfect. Also, RTR is much less laggy, which I think should also be improved in EB.

[Cyclops]

Nothing broken in EB1 that isn't broken in RTW really, pretty much the best possible effort.

Happy to see the "experience problem" for militia units seems to be solved with seasonal/annual/whatever-it-is disbanding. I stil RP disbanding non-elites especially non-elite missile troops. Gold chevroned slings are the HMG of EB.

Also happy to see unit balance will be addressed with recruitment limits. The AI will still try to spam I guess but now they will more likely spam nicely mixed stacks (rather than the endless triarii I fought as the Carthies recently-I've come to hate the triarii unit, its approaching pathology with me).

Maybe they will even be able to use the unique unit feature from Crusades for some awesome fun kick-ass historical units. Maybe AS stormtroopers could be souped up even more if there was just one of them innthe game at a time? Maybe an Iberian faction could have the Vasci shockers if it was just one unit in the world?

[athanaric]

Also happy to see unit balance will be addressed with recruitment limits. The AI will still try to spam I guess but now they will more likely spam nicely mixed stacks (rather than the endless triarii I fought as the Carthies recently-I've come to hate the triarii unit, its approaching pathology with me).
You think Triarii are nasty? Well, I recently disabled Elite African Pikemen (except for my Roman and Carthaginian campaigns) because there basically were several full stacks of them screwing everything in Italy. That happened in at least two recent campaigns. In fact, it happens all the time unless the Romans manage to throw Carthage out of Sicily early on.

[Cyclops]

You think Triarii are nasty? Well, I recently disabled Elite African Pikemen (except for my Roman and Carthaginian campaigns) because there basically were several full stacks of them screwing everything in Italy. That happened in at least two recent campaigns. In fact, it happens all the time unless the Romans manage to throw Carthage out of Sicily early on.

In my campaigns Rome has taken Sicily every time I have seen, then they make peace and one or both of them comes after me (happened as AS, Lusso, Aedui, others).

Elite spam is a worry, although I'm less concerned when the AI screws the AI. Carthaginian pwnage of Italy was something the Romans feared and Hannibal almost achieved so if it happens, c'est la vitae.

I found it hard to swallow because I was carefully house-ruling it. I had stack limits (FL=14 units, FH 12 units, FM 10, allied general 8), "realistic" force mixes (eg a hellenistic allied general would lead a greekish "allied" stack, only the FL/FH got sacred band) so my armies were medium strength unless I shipped the FL up from Carthage where he lived.

I had to do this repeatedly from the start of the war with Rome sometime in the 250's (I never did get that Spartan general) because Greek allied stacks just held their ground vs Triari, and Italian allied stacks (pezoi Brutti-thingy, samnites and Leucanians) bled out rather quickly: after one battle they had to retire and refit.

My solution was a Hannibal-esque blitz around 230 up to the Po, using Sacred band cav elephants and mercenaries of all sorts (very Puni indeed). Roman stacks of mercenary celts and Lugoae were less of a challenge even for my "Latin" allies (3 roarii, 3 hastati, Campanian cav and an Allied general in a stack).

[geala]

What I don't like in EB is the fact that lightly armed and unarmored skirmisher units without firm and stationary formations are not swept away easily by cavalry. Sometimes my cavalry has more casualties in close combat against knife armed slingers than against heavy infantry. I would also like when moving units of what kind ever struck by cavalry would be defeated very easily. I solved the problem more or less by changing the moral of many units, but that was for a cost.

[Mediolanicus]

Actually you're wrong about the formations being hardcoded... Rome Total Realism actually doesn't even have the default formations with exception of the single line formation... they have real, set formations such as triple apex, macedonian phalanx, etc... The reason I bring these things up is because I feel that if EB had the same type of Battle map style as RTR it would be nearly perfect. Also, RTR is much less laggy, which I think should also be improved in EB.

Battles were much more laggy in RTR than in EB. Eb I can play with everything on full, RTR I had to play with small unit sizes and everything off or on minimum.

Campaign is normal. I don't think any mod comes close to the scripts and other data that EB adds.


What I don't like in EB is the fact that lightly armed and unarmored skirmisher units without firm and stationary formations are not swept away easily by cavalry. Sometimes my cavalry has more casualties in close combat against knife armed slingers than against heavy infantry. I would also like when moving units of what kind ever struck by cavalry would be defeated very easily. I solved the problem more or less by changing the moral of many units, but that was for a cost.

They are swept away very easily by cavalry. Unless yor cavalry stops and begins melee, in which case they easily surrounded, dragged from their horses and killed.

I don't know why a moving unit, that's not running from battle, is not demoralized and is not occupied with another unit, would be much easier to defeat.

[Arkhis]

Actually, it's better. I've been playing TATW for some time and when I really started to beat up an evil faction, they came suing for peace despite still bordering me (didn't help them as their last settlements were taken by the AI Dwarven Empire, hehe).
M2TW's AI is still retarded but believe me it's an improvement over RTW's, at least on the campaign map.
You're right, diplomacy is slightly better in M2TW. At least factions don't fight to the death all the time.


Actually you're wrong about the formations being hardcoded... Rome Total Realism actually doesn't even have the default formations with exception of the single line formation... they have real, set formations such as triple apex, macedonian phalanx, etc... The reason I bring these things up is because I feel that if EB had the same type of Battle map style as RTR it would be nearly perfect. Also, RTR is much less laggy, which I think should also be improved in EB.
Indeed, my mistake :(.

I think EB isn't laggy, just a bit slow, but that's due to the script and the fact it has a lot more data to process then the original game (don't know compared to RTR). Admittedly, it works a lot faster on the IB or ALX .exe's. I'd rather have a slower, full EB then a faster, stripped down EB though.


What I don't like in EB is the fact that lightly armed and unarmored skirmisher units without firm and stationary formations are not swept away easily by cavalry. Sometimes my cavalry has more casualties in close combat against knife armed slingers than against heavy infantry. I would also like when moving units of what kind ever struck by cavalry would be defeated very easily. I solved the problem more or less by changing the moral of many units, but that was for a cost.
Nearly all units break quickly when decently charged (in the rear, by medium-heavy cavalry), but I play on medium battle difficulty mostly (where AI morale isn't boosted).

[Cyclops]

...They are swept away very easily by cavalry. Unless yor cavalry stops and begins melee, in which case they easily surrounded, dragged from their horses and killed....

I find light troops on loose formation resist cav charges longer than if they are on tight formation which seems counterintuitive.

I guess because the men are further apart they take longer to be killed so their morale holds longer? Dunno.

They also resist elephants and chariots better when loose which seems right.

Maybe thats the tradeoff? Anyway as you sensibly point out cav charges in EB are rarely decisive unless the charged unit is already engaged.

I'm definitely not asking for elephant charges to be changed, I love them.

[seienchin]

I find light troops on loose formation resist cav charges longer than if they are on tight formation which seems counterintuitive.

I guess because the men are further apart they take longer to be killed so their morale holds longer? Dunno.

They also resist elephants and chariots better when loose which seems right.

Maybe thats the tradeoff? Anyway as you sensibly point out cav charges in EB are rarely decisive unless the charged unit is already engaged.

I'm definitely not asking for elephant charges to be changed, I love them.
You are of course absolutly right.
Skirmisher with the skirmishing mode on often starts running in the opposite direction of the cavallery thus eliminating the charge and forcing the cavallery into melee. It is really a problem in Rome and unrealistic and very easy to exploit.

[paleologos]

Nothing broken in EB1 that isn't broken in RTW really, pretty much the best possible effort.

Happy to see the "experience problem" for militia units seems to be solved with seasonal/annual/whatever-it-is disbanding. I stil RP disbanding non-elites especially non-elite missile troops. Gold chevroned slings are the HMG of EB.

Also happy to see unit balance will be addressed with recruitment limits. The AI will still try to spam I guess but now they will more likely spam nicely mixed stacks (rather than the endless triarii I fought as the Carthies recently-I've come to hate the triarii unit, its approaching pathology with me).

Maybe they will even be able to use the unique unit feature from Crusades for some awesome fun kick-ass historical units. Maybe AS stormtroopers could be souped up even more if there was just one of them innthe game at a time? Maybe an Iberian faction could have the Vasci shockers if it was just one unit in the world?

"RP" and "HMG" what do they stand for? Personaly, I like the veteracy system as it is in RTW, though I admit missile units beggin to act like AP once they are experienced enough. Still do you really think that realism and historical accuracy should outweight gameplay in what is a game?

Also it would be nice if recruitment of units drained the population. In M2TW it did not.

Also I remember in M2TW it was possible to capture routing troops. I assume this will be unchanged in EB II and I would like to see the option of selling POWs in slave markets in the case of the AI refusing to redeem them. As a matter of fact it should not be an option. I find it annoying that redeemed POWs would be returned with their full panoply. They should only be sold and never killed and their numbers adding to the population of the nearest friendly settlement.

[Foot]

RP = roleplaying
HMG = heavy machine gun

You may personally like the veterancy system in RTW, however we think that it breaks the delicate balance that exist in the base stats of our units, and so we would never return to those bad old days. For EB, history and realism inspire our gameplay, not the other way round. There is a mistake in thinking history and gameplay are two sides pulling against each other. They actually work together and for us there is no hard choice when it comes to it. History inspires gameplay, and so we feel that a balanced, realistic stat system (including veterancy) makes for a better game than some 300-esque stat where gold chevroned peasants stand as gods on the battlefield.

We disagree about the recruitment and population. The justification for recruitment draining population is just no there. Population obviously does not represent the full population of a province, yet a city can only develop if men of fighting age are not fighting. We much prefer recruitment to be constrained by the far more modifiable recuitment pools of MTW2.

Capturing troops is hardcoded into the game, and so will still exist. The options that are available at the end of the battle, however, cannot be changed. We can rename then, and we probably will, however the effects of each option will stay exactly the same (hardcoded).

Foot

[Zradha Pahlavan]

Less crashing and a better AI would be nice.

[Belisarius II]

Although it would take a lot of scripting, I would like settlements' names to change to the faction which conquered it.

For example, if Rome takes Taras, then Taras becomes Tarentum next turn. This could work for many factions, not just Rome, I'm thinking that Pahlava would benefit from this too.

Just a thought, though I understand it would be impossible to implement for certain occasions. (i.e. Luso taking Carthage)

EDIT: I realized this is more of a new feature than an old one being fixed.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Actually, it doesn't require scripting. In the MedII engine it is possible to change the name of a city depending on the faction that controls it.

[vartan]

Here's a question for y'all: What are the main things you want to see kept from EB1 in EB2? (note: only one question mark necessary, not three)

[jirisys]

What do you mean by this?


Diplomacy in M2TW is still as shit as in Rome: TW, so it won't be any better, I fear it's hardcoded. That's why people use that forced diplomacy mod.


The game is not about Rome alone ;). Besides, it already has over a thousand turns, that's REALLY long.


They're still working on the new factions, though I doubt any Illyrian tribe will be playable. You should look for the criteria for faction-inclusion on these forums and see if they fit any of those.


Again, they're still working on new factions, but you should read the previews, 'cause then you'd know that: Numidians are in, represented by the Kingdom of Massylia, and Dacians and Thracians are already in EB1, just check out the Getai.

Factions are political units, not cultural.


Hardcoded again, I fear.

Personally, the biggest issues I have are with the AI, and those should've been fixed by CA, but alas, the AI is still bad :(.

When in doubt... use :daisy:

~Jirisys (dang science fair project! come on college!:sad:)

[Belisarius II]

Here's a question for y'all: What are the main things you want to see kept from EB1 in EB2? (note: only one question mark necessary, not three)

It's general epicness.

[Seneca]

An improvement of the naval warfare would be nr. 1 on my wishlist. More AI navy's and not just juggernaut ships from Ptolemaioi, and more naval invasions.

Also, it really takes the pleasure out of having an expencive navy when you know it has nearly no effect to blockade the enemys ports, so if blockading could be an effective weapon in EBII it would add a lot to the aspect of economic warfare.

[vartan]

Its general epicness.
Could you be more specific?

[jirisys]

Could you be more specific?

Your question was epic, that's what he meant

~Jirisys (i forgot to say 200th post! when i made my 200th post, dang i hate last minute work)

[vartan]

Your question was epic, that's what he meant

~Jirisys (i forgot to say 200th post! when i made my 200th post, dang i hate last minute work)
Congrats. And not really. What do you mean you want to keep its epicness?

[Tux]

I want to see the Lorica Segmentata!!!

[Apázlinemjó]

I want to see the Lorica Segmentata!!!

Yeeeey and EB needs Imhotep from the Mummy movie.

[stratigos vasilios]

Congrats. And not really. What do you mean you want to keep its epicness?

I think he means to keep the awesome immersiveness and brilliant gameplay of the EB1, transfered over into EB2.

I think this can pretty much be guaranteed considering it *is* the EB team were talking about.

[A Nerd]

Epic timeframe, epic immersion, epic realism, etc. Yes, and epic imagination.

[Cyclops]

... gold chevroned peasants stand as gods on the battlefield. ...

Yes there is a "resolution" problem with the improvement in a unit over 10 levels of experience, especially at the bottom end. A slinger witrh "1" attack, plus 9 for experience winds up being ten times as deadly, whereas a unit with 10 attack merely doubles its deadliness.

The proposed autodisbanding militia feature will go a long way to fixing this I'm sure.

I do like the idea of some experience being available. Military doctrine does recognise the value of veteran troops over greenhorns.

I see this as a factor when translating historically described units into game terms. Alexander's men kicked some, big time. The Romans managed to beat the later Macedonians who used a similar unit set-so do we rate Romans higher than the victors of Gaugemela?

I see part of this equation being Alexander's army included a huge proportion of veterans of Philllips many campaigns, whereas the Diadochi troops the Romans fought were probably less well lead but also less "professional", that is not having been in the field as a cohesive force for sustained periods.

IIRC there's an episode in the Gallic wars where Caesar hires a mercenary German cav unit which procedess to trounce all the Gallic cav it meets. Is this because the German cav is intrinsically better, or was it an experienced unit vs green ones?

The Gallophile in me wants it to be the second option. As if germanic cavalry could defeat its gallic equivalent straight up! [scoffs ignorantly]

I'm confident there will be a sensible position reached in the way the game is presented. Pretty much every decision has been subject to examination.

On the question of Epic-ness (epic-osity? epic-centricity?), I think its there.

I think we're seeing at least the same attention to detail, respect for the sources, and love of the subject than in EB1. Certainly the excellent work already done meets the highest standard we could set. Its a luxury having dedicated people doing such a thorough job for free.

[Cyclops]

...The proposed autodisbanding militia feature ...

Something just occured to me. Could different groups of units be autodisbanded over different timescales?

EG all units with the militia tag get demobbed annually (someone suggested each Autumn).

And maybe there could be units tagged mercenary which get disbanded after 5 or 10 years? Elites could get 20 or even 40 years (like the white haired silver shields who fought with Phillip and Alexander and even afterwards). OMG OMG.

I haven't though it through but a sliding scale of unit lifespans might allow for some unit "maturity" but without them becoming elite zombie legions ("you see these chevrons I got? My Pappy earned them back in the First Punic War, but somehow it makes me a better soldier. Why? Hardcoded, sonny!").

edit-I forgot, the gobal disband would be at a fixed time, not a countdown for each unit. Damn.

[Julianus]

What I want most is the "minor factions" introduced in ETW, they're not complete factions hence not playable, but they're independent AI factions.
So every Eleutheroi city would belong to their respective minor faction which fails to qualify as a major faction, rather than all belong to a bizarre huge faction called Eleutheroi.
However I know this feature is not in M2TW...

[Mediolanicus]

What I want most is the "minor factions" introduced in ETW, they're not complete factions hence not playable, but they're independent AI factions.
So every Eleutheroi city would belong to their respective minor faction which fails to qualify as a major faction, rather than all belong to a bizarre huge faction called Eleutheroi.
However I know this feature is not in M2TW...

That's what I like most in EB, and will be improved in EB II. It is also the reason I can't play any other mod out there.

In EB every province is unique and has its own character, whether you control it, an AI faction control it, or the Eleutheroi control it.
Many small independent factions would be nice indeed, but the EB team are doing a magnificent job within the limits of the engine to represent each independent region.

[WinsingtonIII]

On the subject of veterancy, keep in mind that veterancy in M2TW is toned down quite a bit from RTW veterancy. In RTW and EB, it was +1 attack +1 defense skill with every single chevron, plus, I believe, a morale bonus that I am not sure about because it doesn't show on unit cards (I still cannot understand why morale is not shown on unit cards in both RTW and M2TW btw...).

In M2TW, the first chevron in each "level," aka the first bronze chevron, the first silver, and the first gold, all give +1 attack. However, there is no defense skill addition, and they only get +1 attack for these three chevrons, not for the rest. Again, I'm unsure about morale bonuses. But this definitely is not nearly as much of an overall bonus as in RTW. With all 9 chevrons, a unit only gets +3 attack, as opposed to +9 attack and +9 defense skill.

[irelandeb]

What I want most is the "minor factions" introduced in ETW, they're not complete factions hence not playable, but they're independent AI factions.
So every Eleutheroi city would belong to their respective minor faction which fails to qualify as a major faction, rather than all belong to a bizarre huge faction called Eleutheroi.
However I know this feature is not in M2TW...

the Eleutheroi were minor factions, jsut a colelction of minor factions. In EB I they all had different flags, colours, units and names

[Macilrille]

Yeps, and I can confirm that each province will be unige in EB II as well, though not whether more or less so then in EB I. That I shall leave to your guesstimate.

[Paltmull]

What I want most is the "minor factions" introduced in ETW, they're not complete factions hence not playable, but they're independent AI factions.
So every Eleutheroi city would belong to their respective minor faction which fails to qualify as a major faction, rather than all belong to a bizarre huge faction called Eleutheroi.
However I know this feature is not in M2TW...

Oh,wow, that would be awesome. Imagine all the Hellenic city-states, celtic tribes etc. being separate factions. :O But as we know, EB II will be closer to that than EB I, since the faction slot number for M2TW is much bigger.

[Drunk Clown]

Here's a question for y'all: What are the main things you want to see kept from EB1 in EB2? (note: only one question mark necessary, not three)

I don't think it's moddable, but I would like to see units being able to fall off the walls. When I played MTW: 2 I always had the feeling as if there were invisible walls on top of the walls. I also found it quite funny when peasants commited suicide by jumping off.

[vartan]

I don't think it's moddable, but I would like to see units being able to fall off the walls. When I played MTW: 2 I always had the feeling as if there were invisible walls on top of the walls. I also found it quite funny when peasants commited suicide by jumping off.
Makes for some funny YouTube videos.

[Cambyses]

The main thing, the only thing even, that I would like to see "fixed" is the in game stability. I dont know how many times Ive given up an EB campaign after yet another CTD. The mod is brilliant and I recognise that it takes advantage of all the features available to it - but cant do anything about the AI. However, the CTDs are just too much in the mid to late game when you can often fight 5+ battles a turn, then have to log on again and replay them all - again.

[TancredTheNorman]

CTD is the largest of all the EB1 problems, I just can't think of any others.

[irelandeb]

yeah sometimes you're going great in a campaign and then it CTDs, and every time you re-load the game, it CTDs again, so that whole campaign is wasted.

I've never got past 200 BC because of CTDs destroying my campaign.

[SlickNicaG69]

I've come up with some other things I'd like to add to the discussion:

1) Seige Works Animation on Campaign Map blocks individual map towns next to the beseiged city and should be fixed.

2) True, 10 exp. peasants should not be able to beat silver chevroned cohorts. But, keep in mind, that, historically, the Rhaetian peaks were not subdued by the Romans until the Imperial Era because they were so vicious, warlike, and occupied a strong defensive position. They weren't particularly better warriors than the Romans, but the fact they were located geographically where they were (between Gaul, Germany, and the Alps) caused them to be conquered well after Gaul and Germany were subdued. Once surrounded, their demise was assured. In the game, you could easily defeat such armies straight up, because there is nothing that prevents u from moving across the alps with such ease (and loss of life and soldiers). Thus, there must be something to balance that out and such an issue actually might help. I'm not saying its perfect, just saying its an issue that can be put to good use.

3) About the "minor" factions, I agree that they should be their own, unplayable factions. Because there is nothing that makes me wonder more than: "If 3 Lusotanni Towns are at war with Rome, and Rome surrounds them, why would they not ally against Rome if they themselves are not at war?

[Epimetheus]

If you can be more specific and post your evidence that we got it wrong, that would be great. Note that translating a world that is not flat onto a map that is never going to be correct. But if you don't tell us how we've got it wrong (and back that up with some good evidence) then how are we going to know we got it wrong. Its all well and good for you to say "fix it", but we need to know what to fix and also the reasons why you think it needs to be fixed.

Foot

Well, in some cases it wasn't that you guys got it wrong, they're simply errors that it appears were never corrected from the original RTW map when EB modded it. Mazaka, the capital of Kappadokia, for instance, remains unchanged from it's location in RTW, where it is depicted as being north of the Halys River, however, this is clearly inaccurate, as the city of Mazaka still exists to this day, albeit under a different name. Mazaka's name was changed to Eusebia during the reign of Ariathes V, and later to Caesarea Cappadociae. which became corrupted in Turkish to Kayseri. Now, if one looks at a modern map of Turkey, one can see that Kayseri is clearly south of the Halys River.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/bizarcasm/forum/picture-2.jpg

Compared to the EB/RTW location, it would be the red dot on the EB map:

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/bizarcasm/forum/picture-1.jpg

The other obvious error that sticks out, is the location of the city of Susa. This one appears to be a case where the EB team got it wrong. On the EB map, Susa is depicted as being located in the Zagros Mountains, which is inaccurate. Susa, like Mazaka, is a city that remains inhabited to this day, as the city of Shush in Iran, and it's location is easy enough to pinpoint on a modern map as being in the plains south of the Zagros.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/bizarcasm/forum/picture-5.jpg

Compared to the EB location, it would be the red dot on the EB map:

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/bizarcasm/forum/picture-3.jpg

These are my main quibbles with the EB1 map. If necessary, I can provide more evidence for these changes. There are also a few seemingly anachronistic city names, such as Asaak, or Arsakia as the Greeks called it, in Astabene, which, as far as I can tell, wasn't known as such until it was conquered by Arsakes I, roughly thirty years after the beginning of EB. The portrayal of the province of Atropatene, or Adurbadegan as it is called in EB, is also highly dubious to me, but I'd have to do a lot more digging in order to properly address that issue.

[plutoboyz]

some new faction like Numidian, Bosporan, etc... and unit voice. hearing Hindus Pattiyodha speak greek accent is just weird. and Nomad Unit vioces. saka have their own language, many HA don't have voices.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

some new faction like Numidian, Bosporan, etc... and unit voice. hearing Hindus Pattiyodha speak greek accent is just weird. and Nomad Unit vioces. saka have their own language, many HA don't have voices.

Two words: Germanic Voicemod!

[Ibrahim]

Something just occured to me. Could different groups of units be autodisbanded over different timescales?

EG all units with the militia tag get demobbed annually (someone suggested each Autumn).

And maybe there could be units tagged mercenary which get disbanded after 5 or 10 years? Elites could get 20 or even 40 years (like the white haired silver shields who fought with Phillip and Alexander and even afterwards). OMG OMG.

I haven't though it through but a sliding scale of unit lifespans might allow for some unit "maturity" but without them becoming elite zombie legions ("you see these chevrons I got? My Pappy earned them back in the First Punic War, but somehow it makes me a better soldier. Why? Hardcoded, sonny!").

edit-I forgot, the gobal disband would be at a fixed time, not a countdown for each unit. Damn.

I beg to disagree on elites (in part); while its true that no unit lasts forever, it is however common for regiments to last longer; roman legions were known to last for centuries after being raised in the late republic. IIRC, LEG. XX lasted 3 centuries or so, and I recall one legion lasting 5 and a half centuries. and I am aware of Argyraspides being maintained by the selecids for extended periods of time.

the trick is to make experience effect less. luckily, M2TW is just that in regards to experience.

[Phalanx300]

In EBI there were Germanic units which possesed swords but didn't use any spears. Personally think that owning a sword didn't equal using it at a primary weapon. Like the Cherusci being known as sword owners doesn't mean they don't fight primerely with spears.

[vartan]

In EBI there were Germanic units which possesed swords but didn't use any spears. Personally think that owning a sword didn't equal using it at a primary weapon. Like the Cherusci being known as sword owners doesn't mean they don't fight primerely with spears.
That's correct. But there is one problem. In RTW and in M2TW, as far as I know, units can only have two weapons: primary and secondary. The Cherusci swordsmen in EBI were given two thrown javelins (spears) as primary, and a sword as secondary. Certainly the Cherusci could (did* more likely) have a SPEAR that they carried with them, but in the aforementioned games (RTW/M2TW) the unit cannot have 1) javelins, 2) spear, and 3) sword, but rather only a combination of two of these. That is unfortunately why the Cherusci swordsman does not carry a fighting spear in-game.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

That's correct. But there is one problem. In RTW and in M2TW, as far as I know, units can only have two weapons: primary and secondary. The Cherusci swordsmen in EBI were given two thrown javelins (spears) as primary, and a sword as secondary. Certainly the Cherusci could (did* more likely) have a SPEAR that they carried with them, but in the aforementioned games (RTW/M2TW) the unit cannot have 1) javelins, 2) spear, and 3) sword, but rather only a combination of two of these. That is unfortunately why the Cherusci swordsman does not carry a fighting spear in-game.

If only there was EB Mount and Blade.....

[jirisys]

If only there was EB Mount and Blade.....

Heck it'd be the best game ever

Too bad you need to carry projectiles as a weapon too

~Jirisys (Khergit Khanate:clown:)

[ziegenpeter]

Ever heard of the M&B mod "Hegemonia" or "Hegemony"?
PS: Where is it stated that the EB team will stop working after EBII?

[jirisys]

Ever heard of the M&B mod "Hegemonia" or "Hegemony"?
PS: Where is it stated that the EB team will stop working after EBII?

I already dowloaded it:grin:

~Jirisys (SIGNA FERTE!)

[Phalanx300]

That's correct. But there is one problem. In RTW and in M2TW, as far as I know, units can only have two weapons: primary and secondary. The Cherusci swordsmen in EBI were given two thrown javelins (spears) as primary, and a sword as secondary. Certainly the Cherusci could (did* more likely) have a SPEAR that they carried with them, but in the aforementioned games (RTW/M2TW) the unit cannot have 1) javelins, 2) spear, and 3) sword, but rather only a combination of two of these. That is unfortunately why the Cherusci swordsman does not carry a fighting spear in-game.

I see, well this certainly answers my question. Thanks.


And yes Hegemon mod is nice and clearly EB inspired. Yet they put their own view in it which I don't always like. Like having Germanic pikemen without shields. Whiel its said some Germanics had overly long shields that doesn't equal no shields. Seeing the symbolic importance of shields in Germanic society as well...

[Brennus]

I would like to see two key things fixed:

1. I would like to see a more robust Seleucid Empire. I don't like how Baktria tends to sweep across Asia at the expense of the AS, very innacurate in my opinion. Obviously don't make the Seleucids an unstoppable force but just less prone to collapsing within a ten year gap. I know this can be prevented with the add_money cheat but i would rather see the Seleucids have a fighting chance.

2. Most importantly! I would like to see Rome and Carthage actually fight. As a fan of Celtic factions I am sick of watching Sicily remain in peace whilst the Roman legions march towards the English channel. Yes I know I should use the force diplomacy mod but I would rather , as above, watch history unfold.

A few more factions to slow the Sweboz down would be nice but I will settle for the above happily.

[Apázlinemjó]

I hope in EB2 the chevron flags on the battlefields won't be removed, so you can see which are the seasoned troops of your enemy. That was a quite useful feature in MTW2.

[Arjos]

I remember that in some MTW2 mods the general's bodyguards units were different for those family members who where adopted or married to princess, it will be nice to see this in EB II with special units for family members with a particular ethnic trait...

[Ca Putt]

I'd like to see a fairer distribution of boni amung Temples and the like. In EB1 you've always got those not working morale/layality boni and the pitifull tax bonus limiting your choice of temples. Or (as I think the EB team planned it) rewrite the building tree to some extent. I know that M2TW has other boni but I'd just like a bit more focus on this(the balancing not temples as such) than in EB1.

question: will there be as much "health" buildings in EB2 as in EB1 or more like in M2TW?

apart from that I don'T know much to improve :)

[Brennus]

I hope in EB2 the chevron flags on the battlefields won't be removed, so you can see which are the seasoned troops of your enemy. That was a quite useful feature in MTW2.

Yes that was a useful feature, but did armies in antiquity use different banners for different unit types (I have no idea).

[MisterFred]

I want EBII to continue to be the best Total War game ever made.... EBI still reigns supreme right now, and I have no doubt in the general awesomeness of everyone on the EBII team. Seriously, my respect and admiration for everyone on the team. That said,

Perhaps the number-one thing I'd like to see the EBII team keep or enhance is the occasional presence of aggressive eletheuroi armies. Like the one that goes after Ippone early. I think in one Sweboz game I had one attack my capitol in the first 10-15 turns (and take it, lolz). However these are created, I'd like more of them. Makes the eletheuroi seem less passive. It seems to me this could be scripted. I don't know how that works, but perhaps something like:

1) (every 4th spring-staggered between provinces so the invasions don't all happen at once) the script checks to see if (aggressive province X - places like Dalmatia or Galatia, but not perhaps places like Greseoallra [Massilia]) is controlled by the Eleutheori. If no, end script.

2) If yes, check to see if province x (the province most likely to be invaded from the aggressive province, say Illyria_Helenike for Dalmatia; Phygria or Bithynia for Galatia) is occupied by the player (or if necessary, any playable faction). If no, check next most likely province to be invaded (less-preferred or wealthy neighbors). If all no, end script.

3)If yes, spawn eletheuroi force allied with home province tribe at map point x [just within the borders of the target province] consisting of (list of units customized according to invader. Galatia, say, could send a general with Gallic Mercenary Light + 3 short swordsmen + a heavy spear unit. Dalmatia could send 2 Illyrian Thereuphori and 4 Coastal Levies with no general - whatever would seem best for gameplay/historical size of region's raids or invasions). Most importantly, whatever trait makes an eleutheroi band aggressive (willing to attack a city), this is assigned to the spawned army.

This seems like it could be a great way to simulate the vigor of eletheuroi-represented factions and the problems with barbarian raids on civilized borders Also, scripts could cause one of the Illyrian provinces to counter-invade if a player takes the other one. Maybe even a few years after, when the main army has moved on to Dacia :). Probably not possible - but if it could be scripted, the EB team would have the experts that know how!:2thumbsup:

The second biggest thing I'd like to see is a truly significant penalty for burnt fields, blackened ground, whatever you want to call the foraging or ravaging of the countryside by an invading army. As it is now, most of the countryside can be blackened and it barely even dents the farming revenue. (Although this sounds like one of those things that might be hard-coded.)

I want EBII to keep the excellent mercenary recruitment system (allowing for tweaks in AoR, spawn rates, etc). While in EBI I sometimes felt that there were too many mercenaries available at any one time, what mercenaries were available where was generally excellent.

I would like to see phalanxes be considerably less invulnerable to missile fire from the front. Taking 2-3 shield defense (depending on elite level of the unit) and adding it to armor or defensive skill (again, depending on the unit, but mostly armor) would vastly improve the realism of arrow fire doing moderate damage to phalanxes - rather than next to nothing. I realize that the shields are probably as strong as they are to enhance the general invulnerability of the phalanx frontally and the vulnerability of the back for MELEE combat, but I think the unreality of the effectiveness of missile fire is a real problem. I currently have no specific battles to reinforce that description, but I think one of the primary purposes of peltasts and psiloi in diadochi combat was to protect the phalanx from being disrupted by enemy missiles - not for the phalanx to be sent forth to absorb the foolish AI's javelins.

I would like to see elephants be more powerful and fewer in number. Currently on huge settings, the "historic" size of an infantry unit is 10-20 times larger than the in-game unit size... except for elephant units, which are more like 2-1. I also think their base melee attack, armor, maybe hit points (maybe just more armor again) should be upped considerably, so that they are dangerous even if slowed. I don't think that fewer, more badass elephants would be unrealistic (especially Indian elephants). I think Bush elephants should probably be removed from the game, unless historians more expert than I have a solid source for their actual use in combat. It would also be nice to see them better at adopting a chariot-like tendency to continously charge and move through the enemy lies - making them more useful for a frontal attack.

I would like to see the Mauryan empire represented as a faction, rather than the independent cites along the Indus + independent Kophen, Alexandropolis, and Pura. I don't think the map needs to be extended to do so. I think the three Indus provinces + the 3 greek or eastern-culture cities west of the Indus region would do a fine job representing the resources the empire could bring to bear on that front. And perhaps a capital in the southern most Indus province+culture and religion problems (and maybe diplomatic preferences in favor of Baktria/AS?) should keep the AI from expanding too much. I realize, however, there are limited faction slots available and the lack of a Mauryan push west post-305BC is an issue, as is the collapse late in the EB time frame.

Similar preferences for a Nubian faction based out of Meroe.

I would like to see the M2TW trade revenue system make more sense - best of luck with that :).

Once again, my thanks to the team.

[Mediolanicus]

Some comments:

- Rebel incursions would have to be random, not every 4 years or so.
- All in all, this would add an enourmous amount of scripting to the game.
- Burned fields looks hard coded, although I too am in favour of more economic repercussions of an invading army.
- Mercenaries were abundant in the classical world, so I imagine the system will only be improved and perhaps even expanded.
- The problem with phalanxes in EB was their hard-coded bonus. I don't know whether M2TW has such a bonus. In any case, hitting them up front with missiles was a waste of missiles anyway. And attacking them from the sides or rear with missiles is very deadly, so you do need peltastai and psiloi to make sure fast, light skirmishers don't get around the flanks or rear of the phalanx and practise hit and run tactics to disrupt your formation (game and reality are rather similar here IMO)
- The continuous charge of chariots and elephants is something you have to micro-manage. If you don't do that they'll get caught in melee and become rather vunarable.
- Faction slots is not so much the problem. Culture slots and the fact that their most important provinces are off the map, are. You could argue that those 3 cities are enough for a Western Mauryan front, but you cannot escape the fact that that would be a very arcady representation (and thus something that absolutely doesn't belong in EB). Strong (defensive) rebels and provinces with a unique character (like in EB I) are the best solution here. The same goes for Meroe.
- Trading system, as long as it isn't hard coded.

[MisterFred]

It would be an enormous amount of scripting, but most of it (I assume) would be copy-paste with a change in years. I should reiterate that I don't have modding skills, so if what I suggest seems ridiculously unreasonable - its because they're just concepts bouncing around my head without serious effort or thought behind them.

As for the constant motion of chariots and elephants - it isn't something you have to manage, in some situations. For instance, charge in chariots against a unit of Akontistai and watch them do their wacky dance forever. They may actually be "pursuing" rather than charging, but the formation disruption if not the mass death is continuous. I'm assuming they only manage against light troops because of a mass-ratio that's necessary for that kind of thing. But if it that kind of thing could be encouraged without getting outlandish effects otherwise, it seems beneficial.

I agree that having 1/4 the Mauryan empire and not the rest is a bit arcady, but so is being able to conquer bits of the Mauryan Empire piecemeal without a collective response. If Eleutheroi counter-invasion scripts are possible, this could be an excellent solution to the Mauryan problem.

Nubian Meroe's problem as a faction doesn't seem to be much of a parts of the empire off the map problem to me. I'm not an expert, but I doubt their control over settled territory extended south of the Sudd for any lengthy period of time. The bigger problems with Meroe seem to be they didn't (successfully) expand all that much in area during EB's time frame, and that I'm guessing seems little basis for an expansion of their unit roster to the level most other factions enjoy (the most I could picture off the top of my head is ~4 missile types ~3 infantry types ~2 cavalry types, 1 elephant type). None of which keep me from thinking they'd be fun. :laugh4:

[Mediolanicus]

And like I said, the biggest problem with Maurya and Meroe is that they would require a new culture slot, each!

[MisterFred]

Not necessarily. Meroe would probably have to be barbarian or eastern, the Maurya eastern, or even roman if you want to focus more on gameplay than labels.

But wait you say! That's ridiculous! The Nubians shared no common culture with the Arverni, the Maurya are obviously a different culture than Pontos...

Well yes, but there's a clear EBI precedent for far-flung factions sharing culture because its convenient and unlikely they'll meet each other on the game map. Remember both Carthage and the Saba were of "Semitic" culture, based only on the thinnest of possible ethnic ties, ignoring differences in economy, government, language, religion, military tactics, and probably EB-timeframe ethnicity. To say nothing about the "Semitic" buildings that the eletheuroi in North Africa had. Meroe sharing whatever culture the Numidians get is no more far-fetched than the Casse, Lusotann, and Getai all sharing the same culture label.

I enjoy the historical focus of EB more than most. But just like in EBI, fudges will have to be made for the greater accuracy of the whole mod. Luckily, I get the sense that those more dedicated and knowledgeable than I are on the job. [Edit - And I'm also assuming the faction list is already set.]

BTW, I enjoyed Never near Argos, thanks.

[Foot]

Meroe were ethiopians (black africans). We can't very well portray them as North African in the family tree portraits now, can we? Meroe are out, and so is the Empire of Maurya. They will have a presence on the map, but that is best represented by Eleutheroi given the limitations that we face. Culture slots are not divvied up according to the ethnicity of a faction, but whether it is possible to represent that faction in that fashion. The family portraits for the carthaginians could be used again for Saba, and wouldn't look to inappropriate. The fact that they both spoke semetic languages was neither here nor there.

Foot

[MisterFred]

I'm a little shocked I didn't realize family tree portraits were tied to culture slot. Heh, learn something new every day.

[Mediolanicus]

BTW, I enjoyed Never near Argos, thanks.

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for reading.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for reading.

Yeah, it was great! I read it on TWC. (I'm Imperial Eagle there)

[miguelalmas]

Hey guys... Have no idea if this is hard to modify or not but i'd like an option to allow my troops to give ground while fighting... kind on what Hannibal did at Cannae... This would allow a much greater control over the battle and allow for a player to either make risky but potencially devastating blows and also to try and disengage with the enemy in an orderly manner without giving a huge hit on morale by having the troops turn their backs on the enemy... I supose this option should come with penalties, maybe to morale and damage dealing...

Apart from frequent crashes i think EB1 is a brilliant game and would like to congratulate all at the modding team for their brilliant work.

[bobbin]

Sadly we can't mod the game in that way.

[antisocialmunky]

Its called gaurd mode in RTW. I think it was somewhat removed in M2TW.

I want not-ridiculous all terrain phalanxes that can spin around and do 180 degree flips.

[bobbin]

Its called gaurd mode in RTW. I think it was somewhat removed in M2TW.
That just ensures your troops stay in formation (and its still in M2TW), what he was asking for was an orderly withdrawal, which is not possible.


I want not-ridiculous all terrain phalanxes that can spin around and do 180 degree flips.
No longer a problem.

[antisocialmunky]

Wasn't miguel talking about back pedalling? Well guardmode units slowly move backwards since they don't counter push when engaged as opposed to a non-guard unit which expands out and pushes.

[Ludens]

Wasn't miguel talking about back pedalling? Well guardmode units slowly move backwards since they don't counter push when engaged as opposed to a non-guard unit which expands out and pushes.

They aren't really retreating, though, merely being pushed back.

BTW, welcome to the .Org, miguelalmas.
~:wave:

[Moros]

Shift + right click behind your own line?

[antisocialmunky]

Throw in reserves, set guard mode on your original troops so they ignore the bad guys, and then them to run back?

[vartan]

Shift + right click behind your own line?
I believe Alt + Right-Click is what you mean, because Alt makes them run back, and reform facing the same direction they did originally.

[athanaric]

I'd like somewhat tweaked victory conditions for some factions. For example in EB I, those for Saba were more Islamic than actually related to ancient Sabaean politics. Perhaps there could be more subtle goals in some places instead of "conquer the following provinces" or "squash factions x, y, and z".
Hopefully the recruitment of sedentary auxiliaries for nomadic factions will also be facilitated. In EB I you have to rely on exploits to properly play the Sauromatae.

[mmiki]

Since it's my first post, I'd like to thank the EB team for a wonderful mod. I've been playing it on and off for years now and I'm really excited about all the great work you're doing on EB II. So keep up the good work and thank you! :)

Back to topic, the short list of things that bothered me in EB:

1) "Frighten nearby infantry" on every naked unit. The effect is just too powerful and the AI just doesn't know how to handle such units. Also, I'm not quite convinced that fighting a bunch of naked guys should be any scarier than fighting an elite phalanx.

2) "Worshiper of ..." trait. It just leads to unnecessary micromanagement. Also it always felt gamey to me - how would being a worshiper of Athena make it easier to rule over Athens?

3) AI historical expansion. But I suppose that there's not much that can be done in this regard.

[Moros]

I'd like somewhat tweaked victory conditions for some factions. For example in EB I, those for Saba were more Islamic than actually related to ancient Sabaean politics.
So what do you suggest?

[MisterFred]

The victory conditions made sense for Saba when I played them. Sure they're similar to Islamic conquests - that is the only model for conquerers swarming out of Arabia. Plus they were hard, which was great.

I mean, if you want historical victory conditions, it could be hold the four cities in the southwest corner of Arabia + Ubar, then build up a treasury of 500,000 gold, but that wouldn't be much fun, would it? :)

[Southern Rider]

Hey folks!

I'm new to the forum, so I don't really know if this has been discussed before, so sorry if it was. I had the impression that CTD is more common when defending or assaulting cities, especially some particular ones (Massalia, for me). That is annoying especially when you are defending in a situation that you know there's a possibility to win if you play the battle, but you will certainly lose if you autoresolve it. But what I more want to see fixed, is the "uncapturable towns", like Bostra, or some numidian cities in Africa... it is almost impossible to keep those towns!!! If you don't keep a full stack and a very good governor inside them, they will repeteadly rebel, no matter how many public order buildings there are, what type of government, an 8 unit garrison, a good governor and repeated slaughters until the population reaches 400 (the minimal)... I know that this unrest represents cultural differences, but is there SUCH a difference, historically speaking? And, how can a town with 400 people boost repeatedly stacks of 1200 gold-chevroned units? (I counted at least three, one after another, in my Baktria campaign, they really screwed with me, since that factory of Sabaean Armies in the middle of my territories gave time to the Seleukids to regroup against me and to the Ptolemies to turn against me, and my income go severly down with huge garrissons... ¬¬)

Besides this, the mode is great in every aspect, these are just minor details!
Sorry for the huge text, or if I have mentioned things already discussed!!

PS: Can barely wait to see Hoplitai Massaliotai in EB2!!!!!!!!!!!

[MisterFred]

Try type 4 governments and client rulers. Works wonders on cities far from your capitol. Also, destroying buildings that don't share your cultures. Trader (Semitic) is not as good as Trader if you're playing Baktria.

[vartan]

Try type 4 governments and client rulers. Works wonders on cities far from your capitol. Also, destroying buildings that don't share your cultures. Trader (Semitic) is not as good as Trader if you're playing Baktria.
Don't client rulers cost more upkeep than the money they bring in?

[Captain Jazzy]

I tend to find that even client rulers who at first seem to be useless with dull/uncharasmatic ect very quickly gain massive ammounts of influence and management. Meaning I can keep hold of the steppe provinces easily and actualy make some money from them.

[Rahl]

Depends on the city and the generals bodyguards. The celtic ones are really cheap if compared to others what makes celtic lesser kings a little bit overpowered since they will bring in their upkeep really easy. But even if you must rely on the expensive greek ones you will often make profit. Especially when the client ruler gets some good traits he will allow you to reduce the garrison significantly and maybe even raise taxes.

[fightermedic]

@mmiki
3) there is.. in med2 the ai can be guided very well by setting certain provinces as victory conditions as far as i experienced it

one of the things i'd like to see in eb2 are generals with VERY few units (talking about 8-10 on huge)
super-champion units that refresh every turn always annoy me
besides.. faction heir and leader would still get enough of a bodyguard unit that way and all other generals would be.. well generals not "i kill everything and refresh next turn" killers
you can still guard your general if you want.. but you would have to recruit units for it!
the only problem i can see is the ai charging blind with an unit of 8 :D
but i guess ai should be tweak to keep generals at the back anyway

[HFox]

Not necessarily fixed but does:

Keeping order depend on experience. That is; as a unit moves, the more it moves it has a chnace to become disordered based on the units experience
A units ability to and speed of reform(ing) once it has become disordered depends on its experience

[Megas Pyrrhos]

I haven't posted on here in forever it seems like. The only thing I could think of to keep in mind, and not sure if this has been said already, but take for example thureophoroi and thorakitai. The description for the thureophoroi says they're faster moving and more mobile than the thorakitai; in-game, they don't have the fast moving attribute because if I remember correctly their model isn't done that way. Or something. In-game I haven't noticed a speed difference so yeah. Bottom line it: if a unit is fast moving or more mobile than standard infantry, maybe make sure they have the fast moving attribute? Thanks all, and the EB team. :)

[SlickNicaG69]

I haven't posted on here in forever it seems like. The only thing I could think of to keep in mind, and not sure if this has been said already, but take for example thureophoroi and thorakitai. The description for the thureophoroi says they're faster moving and more mobile than the thorakitai; in-game, they don't have the fast moving attribute because if I remember correctly their model isn't done that way. Or something. In-game I haven't noticed a speed difference so yeah. Bottom line it: if a unit is fast moving or more mobile than standard infantry, maybe make sure they have the fast moving attribute? Thanks all, and the EB team. :)


This brings me to a very important point, regarding the accuracy and historicity of the EB mod - that it lacks to accurately portray, in various units, the reflection of historical attributes (such as armor, weapons, and renown historical evidence) through its stat values.

Anyone, who plays EB, knows that although, in game, the Greek Classical Hoplite cannot beat a Reformed Legionary Cohort in direct confrontation, it can nevertheless pretty much match it in strength (the 20 man advantage per unit being the difference)...

The stat values are the reason for this, as one can see through analysis of the stat values for each unit: (Attack, Armor, Shield, D Skill, Morale, Lethality.)

Hoplite: (14, 11, 4, 8, 12, 0.13).

Cohort: (11, 10, 4, 8, 14, 0.13).

One can see that the hoplite, through the stats, is pretty much an equal to the cohort, only lacking in number of soldiers (40) by 10 less from the cohort.

However, the in-game description of each unit, their historicity, along with common sense would make one wonder why the game would render any hoplite unit even close in comparison to the cohort:

Hoplite

Each hoplite is equipped with linen or leather armor, an aspis shield, greaves, the attic style helmet and of course, his spear.


Cohort

Roman legionnaires are now uniformly equipped with two pila, a gladius, and an elliptical scutum around 1.28m high. Their main armour still remains a coat of lorica hamata (chain mail) and a Montefortino-type helmet.


What I highlighted I hope illustrates the discrepancy that I hint at. To me, it is unrealistic that a unit with "leather/linen" armor be given the same basic armor value as one with metal armor, let alone let it have a greater value (11 / 10). Furthermore, its shield is much smaller and, hence, would protect the user less, yet the hoplite possesses no such disadvantage if one analyzes the stats. There should be no protest with skill and morale, but as far as lethality, one again becomes suspicious. The gladius was a renown weapon of atrocity, known to be made to permanently disable opponents if not to kill them. The spear, well as they say, is just a spear.

I think it would be great to see this added accuracy coupled with an expanded stat pool - such as maybe the movement speed that is referred to above, if possible - because it would only enhance the historical theme the mod represents.

[MisterFred]

Well, you're a bit off on the stats for hoplite vs legionary, for these reasons: the light-spear attribute gives, I believe, -4 to defense rating (but some bonuses vs cavalry), so the hoplite in that instance actually has less defense than the legionary. As for protection of the armor, both the chainmail and the linen/leather are behind a shield. Moreover the overhand-spear formation doesn't require as much movement of the shield, which is wide and at some points in history and can help the neighbor as well. It does not extend as low as the scutum, true, but don't forget the greaves - plate armor for the lower legs, something the legionaries didn't have. Reduced length in the shield thus doesn't equate to less protection. The higher armor value isn't linothorax or leather vs chainmail, I'm guessing its largely a result of the greaves.

But most importantly, consider that hoplites in particular, and to a lesser extent Roman cohorts, do not all share identical equipment. A whole host of things will affect their equipment, not least of which is region the units are recruited in and the time-period being represented. There are also other differences in the unit, such as the density of the formation, etc. Overall, the EB team has done an incredible job representing historical battles and soldiers. Remember also, that hoplite vs legion battles don't have to just look good, so too do hoplite vs falxman or legionaire vs celtic levy spearmen.

Questioning EB's accuracy is foolish - one can always find tiny points to quibble with, but its accuracy in details and as a whole is incredibly good. As a fan of the mod, I don't appreciate you implying that the team didn't put forth a strong effort to historically represent units - their work obviously shows otherwise.

[Kikaz]

I still gotta wonder why Neitos have 12 armor and Druegalozez and Xosenthozez have only 9...

[SlickNicaG69]

Well, you're a bit off on the stats for hoplite vs legionary, for these reasons: the light-spear attribute gives, I believe, -4 to defense rating (but some bonuses vs cavalry), so the hoplite in that instance actually has less defense than the legionary. As for protection of the armor, both the chainmail and the linen/leather are behind a shield. Moreover the overhand-spear formation doesn't require as much movement of the shield, which is wide and at some points in history and can help the neighbor as well. It does not extend as low as the scutum, true, but don't forget the greaves - plate armor for the lower legs, something the legionaries didn't have. Reduced length in the shield thus doesn't equate to less protection. The higher armor value isn't linothorax or leather vs chainmail, I'm guessing its largely a result of the greaves.

But most importantly, consider that hoplites in particular, and to a lesser extent Roman cohorts, do not all share identical equipment. A whole host of things will affect their equipment, not least of which is region the units are recruited in and the time-period being represented. There are also other differences in the unit, such as the density of the formation, etc. Overall, the EB team has done an incredible job representing historical battles and soldiers. Remember also, that hoplite vs legion battles don't have to just look good, so too do hoplite vs falxman or legionaire vs celtic levy spearmen.

Questioning EB's accuracy is foolish - one can always find tiny points to quibble with, but its accuracy in details and as a whole is incredibly good. As a fan of the mod, I don't appreciate you implying that the team didn't put forth a strong effort to historically represent units - their work obviously shows otherwise.

I think that is the main difference between you and me. You see EB as the ultimate authority in historical facts, I see them as our interpreters. I see us questioning EB's accuracy as our insurance they do a good job, as opposed to your approach of blind faith.

As to the point, I don't seek to bring up specifics like (oh in this region they had more iron helmets than bronze... you know?!)

I'm just seeking a system that is consistent and reliable... so let me ask you then... in regards to the post before mine... why isn't the light hoplite faster than the heavier one? There is no value for movement speed, only an attribute that is why (such as 'Fast Moving'). And even under such circumstances, the attribute is still lacking... isn't it Mr. Kikaz???



Oh, and regards to the whole yea but they're spearmen and they get a penalty, it should have NO bearing on a units basic stats... if, when in combination with certain unit types, such as spear v. sword or spear v. horse, sure let there be penalties and advantages for after all it is a game!... but don't assume that leather armor can protect as well as metal, dont assume a spear is as lethal as a sword, and don't assume a hoplite's fighting style to be efficient to the cohort's.

[Rahl]

The only problem I see with the stats is the fact that a scutum should protect the legionary better, the other stats are ok. The legionary doesn't need the greaves because his legs are mostly protected by the shield. But still the hoplite has a bigger part of his body covered by armour.
But when in history did the classical hoplite face a post-marian legionary?
What you seem to forget SlickNica is the fact that there is the not-totally-realistic engine that is not able to portray the advantages and disadvantages of all kinds of soldiers. If you change stats in a way to portray how the units would have fought against romans... that would be a little bit roman-centric. A weak hoplite would probably be to easy prey for some eastern units. Balancing isn't easy and it needs much time to test all the units. It's not perfect in EB and I believe it is that way because the team does EB II and has no time to perfectly balancing out EB I. I change stats myself when I see something I dislike, you know...
But how much tests did you make to surely know how everything would work if you changed it the way you want it? At least the EB team has done the mod and probably knows more about balancing then you do.

But at the end, this is still the forum for EB II and not EB I and the lethality of spears and shortswords won't be a problem since there is no lethality in the M2TW engine. I doubt that balancing of unit stats will be much better since it is much harder without lethality.

It would still be really nice if you could stop beeing so aggressive. It helps noone.

[vartan]

Questioning EB's accuracy is foolish - one can always find tiny points to quibble with, but its accuracy in details and as a whole is incredibly good. As a fan of the mod, I don't appreciate you implying that the team didn't put forth a strong effort to historically represent units - their work obviously shows otherwise.
If everybody stopped being skeptical, I would recommend everyone start panicking. Who knows the miseries people would submit to. Always good to question, inquire, etc.

I still gotta wonder why Neitos have 12 armor and Druegalozez and Xosenthozez have only 9...
This pretty much goes with Slick's argument. There's a bunch of little...what are they called, anomalies? like this, in EB. And I always figured the modders had some good reason, whether it be balancing or otherwise, for placing those anomalies there. I'm not a modder, I wouldn't know.

I think that is the main difference between you and me. You see EB as the ultimate authority in historical facts, I see them as our interpreters. I see us questioning EB's accuracy as our insurance they do a good job, as opposed to your approach of blind faith.
That's actually a frighteningly good point by you Slick. Kind of reminds me of all the history we're fed in all the courses nowadays. Always good not to take them all at face-value. Step back a bit sometimes, yeah. Good stuff.

[SlickNicaG69]

But still the hoplite has a bigger part of his body covered by armour.
But when in history did the classical hoplite face a post-marian legionary?
What you seem to forget SlickNica is the fact that there is the not-totally-realistic engine that is not able to portray the advantages and disadvantages of all kinds of soldiers.

I agree. There should be no need to speculate on how much of an advantage it was to be a hoplite vs. legionary, etc. Therefore there should be no stat that delves that much into specifics. The generic, current standard, of applying 'mount' effects, I think is sufficient enough, which applies to whole classes, such as spearman v. swordsman. However, the fact you pointed out of "double greaves/smaller shield" v. "no greaves/bigger shield" is easy to solve! (rough estimate):

Hoplite: Shield - 3, Armor 12 [Linothorax (6), Helmet (2), 2 Greaves (4)].

Cohort: Shield - 5, Armor 10 [Chainmail (8), Helmet (2)].

It is important to get these right, as the classical hoplite, would not only have less overall armor, less protection from missles, and be more vulnerable to ap units (which I believe the cohorts to be), but the unit comparison in game would theoretically be pretty much historically accurate as well...



That's actually a frighteningly good point by you Slick ... Good stuff.

Thank you Vartan. This is the first time I've actually felt your warmth... ;)

[B-Wing]

Hoplite: Shield - 3, Armor 12 [Linothorax (6), Helmet (2), 2 Greaves (4)].

Cohort: Shield - 5, Armor 10 [Chainmail (8), Helmet (2)].

It is important to get these right, as the classical hoplite, would not only have less overall armor, less protection from missles, and be more vulnerable to ap units (which I believe the cohorts to be), but the unit comparison in game would theoretically be pretty much historically accurate as well...

I'm a bit confused by this. I think one point that MisterFred was trying to make was that it is reasonable for Hoplites and Cohorts to have the same shield values, due to Hoplite's smaller shield's being offset by their greaves. Meaning, the greaves would be contributing to their shield value, not armor, since they mostly protect from frontal attacks. I think giving Hoplites a higher armor rating than Cohorts based on the fact that they wear greaves would be erroneous. As I understand the way those stats work in-game is like this:
Shields only provide their full value of protection from frontal attacks, giving only half their value of protection from side attacks, and no protection from rear attacks.
Armor provides the same value of protection from all angles. Armor piercing weapons reducing this value by half.

So if Hoplites are indeed armored more heavily toward their front, then this should be reflected via a higher shield value, possibly even equal to that of Cohorts. Their actual armor rating would be less than that of Cohorts. I think this makes sense.

As for the attack values, I'm very unclear on what the actual in-game effects of the Spear and Short Spear attributes are. I think one significantly reduces the units defense against infantry while the other reduces their attack. I think this was a very bad decision on CA's part, since it makes it pretty much impossible to judge how well a spear unit will perform against infantry by simply looking at their in-game description stats. If spears are supposed to be inferior weapons to swords, then spear units ought to simply have lower attack values. There's already inherent bonuses for spears versus cavalry, so having an additional, hidden nerf to their performance against infantry is just frustrating to players like myself. I think the EB team addressed this issue by giving spear units higher base defense and attack scores than comparable sword units. It's still hard for anyone who doesn't know the actual penalties (as well as which class of spear the unit is considered to be carrying) to determine how a spear unit stands in comparison with other units.

[abou]

I may be wrong since I wasn't a part of the team when we did the stating, but the reason for the hoplite shields having a higher value was due to it's construction rather than just its size. On size alone, the scutum and thureos would have higher values, but the aspis is bronze-faced making it far sturdier and heavier. For example, we know from Carrhae that the recurve, composite bow can have arrows penetrate the scutum's leather coverings and layers of wood (although the layering does not seem to have always present). I can think of no similar circumstance with the aspis despite its long history fighting against similar weapons.

[antisocialmunky]

Don't Neitos have the double layer of chain over the shoulders? Similarly Cohors have similarly high armor ratings minus the points for chain sleeves.

[SlickNicaG69]

I'm a bit confused by this. I think one point that MisterFred was trying to make was that it is reasonable for Hoplites and Cohorts to have the same shield values, due to Hoplite's smaller shield's being offset by their greaves. Meaning, the greaves would be contributing to their shield value, not armor, since they mostly protect from frontal attacks. I think giving Hoplites a higher armor rating than Cohorts based on the fact that they wear greaves would be erroneous. As I understand the way those stats work in-game is like this:
Shields only provide their full value of protection from frontal attacks, giving only half their value of protection from side attacks, and no protection from rear attacks.
Armor provides the same value of protection from all angles. Armor piercing weapons reducing this value by half.

So if Hoplites are indeed armored more heavily toward their front, then this should be reflected via a higher shield value, possibly even equal to that of Cohorts. Their actual armor rating would be less than that of Cohorts. I think this makes sense.

As for the attack values, I'm very unclear on what the actual in-game effects of the Spear and Short Spear attributes are. I think one significantly reduces the units defense against infantry while the other reduces their attack. I think this was a very bad decision on CA's part, since it makes it pretty much impossible to judge how well a spear unit will perform against infantry by simply looking at their in-game description stats. If spears are supposed to be inferior weapons to swords, then spear units ought to simply have lower attack values. There's already inherent bonuses for spears versus cavalry, so having an additional, hidden nerf to their performance against infantry is just frustrating to players like myself. I think the EB team addressed this issue by giving spear units higher base defense and attack scores than comparable sword units. It's still hard for anyone who doesn't know the actual penalties (as well as which class of spear the unit is considered to be carrying) to determine how a spear unit stands in comparison with other units.

It is important, when applying stats, to adhere to certain standards or rules when applying them, so that even when a discrepancy may arise, one can state that it was based on a set, logical system and is therefore fair and balanced to its players.

When you say,
it is reasonable for Hoplites and Cohorts to have the same shield values, due to Hoplite's smaller shield's being offset by their greaves, this is simply just not consistent with what I stated above. I understand your logic: that sometimes one can develop a more factual rendition by adding exceptions that can't be explained following the rules. But this, to me, eventually leads to people overanalyzing, overbalancing, and, eventually, distorting further what was tried to make clear.

Thus, when you say that the hoplites has greaves, you don't put greaves in the "shield" section just because of the fact that it's solely a "front-protecting" instrument. Otherwise, would we have to develop a way to properly apply helmet values since, for instance, some had chinstraps, others were enclosed? This would go too far, and would lead to an endless debate that "steel helmets are better than bronze, bronze are lighter than steel, etc." The real issue is that the helmet is armor, not a shield; that it is of metal, not a leather cap. It may shield you from an arrow, but it is unlikely that it will shield you from a volley of arrows as a shield would. Thus, putting its value in the shield section would be erroneous because (in-game) it would then imply that the helmet is as good vs arrows as it is in melee combat (actually better if what you described above is true), a clear discrepancy that can be solved with little dispute.

Once again, what I stress is a standard of values for each stat that is based on certain facts about the details involved in the unit's description.

[seienchin]

I think that is the main difference between you and me. You see EB as the ultimate authority in historical facts, I see them as our interpreters. I see us questioning EB's accuracy as our insurance they do a good job, as opposed to your approach of blind faith.

Amen, man.
Some people in this forum really believe in anything the team does despite the fact, that the teams creates a game and not a historical book. There are unhistorical things to get a balanced game and then there are things the team had to make up, because of no evidence.
Like 98% of the casse faction. Nobody knows anything for sure about britain in 270 b.c..
Another thing is, that the team has a certain point of view on history not anyone agrees.
"Europa Barbarorum" says it all. The approach is that the "barbarians" were great too and rome wasnt the all mighty moloch many(Or maybe most) historian believe.
For Example CA thought Romes marian soldiers were the strongest in the world as you see in Vanilla.:book: (Vanilla is not too realisitc though)
Anyway there are soooo many things in the EB timeframe, which you can interpretate in many ways.

[B-Wing]

It is important, when applying stats, to adhere to certain standards or rules when applying them, so that even when a discrepancy may arise, one can state that it was based on a set, logical system and is therefore fair and balanced to its players.

If I understand you correctly, it seems you are implying that having a consistent, if rigid, system for assigning stats is overall more important than making units function more accurately through the use of more "interpretive" stat assignment. (Perhaps "creative" would be a better word.) I can see the value in that. But I disagree in personal preference here. If EB2 aims for historical accuracy, but the limitations of the game mechanics make it impossible to represent something likes greaves in an accurate way without resorting to distorted stats, I'm in favor of distorting them. I understand what the stats mean, even if they don't correspond to a literal assesment of the units equipment and abilities.

The shield value protects a unit from both melee and ranged attacks, but it is most effective from the front, less effective from the side, and not at all from the rear. If greaves only cover the front side of a soldier's shins, then for all practical in-game purposes, they're shields. I'm perfectly fine with that. The fact that a soldier wears front-facing greaves does not mean he will be any more likely to survive a blow or arrow aimed at his back. So, from my perspective, saying that greaves should add to a unit's armor rating regardless of their limited protection capacity is asking for a less realistic mod. I thought you were arguing for more realistic mod.

Having said all this, I should mention that I really appreciate your original point about consistency and comparative stats and I have no desire to insult your opinions. I feel silly for debating the appropriate application of greaves. But these are things that must be considered when trying to achieve "historical accuracy" in a game.

[Ca Putt]

Giving the Cohors an extra shield point would be reasonable imho still the hoplite should still have his value of 4, afterall the Aspis still covers the "whole body" whereas the legs are protected themselves AND they are really thick so giving them the same armor value as smaller or similar sized wicker shields is well a bit off. still it's your modification and thus I'm the last one to insist on you changing your mind.

[MisterFred]

At a certain point we stop deciding what would be best for statting, and are just making a list from best to worst of shields. Remember, because of the limits of the engine, fine distinctions are impossible. Try working at the problem from the other direction. Instead of examining in detail whether the aspis or the scutum is better protection in every situation (more fun, I know), create a list of possible shield values and what categories of shield they represent:

0 - Don't got one
1 - Is that a shield or an elbow guard?
2 - Effective shields that are, for whatever reason, small (most cav shields, quality bucklers)
3 - Large shields of decent utility, but which may not be of the very best construction (not as heavy); also, the best cavalry shields
4 - Big 'ole, high-quality infantry shields, capable of reliably protecting against all but artillery shot from at least knees to face
5 - Better than the best - shields which have a higher value because the developers feel it is important to represent some non-shield resistance to missile fire through this stat, not because of the shield itself (e.g. the theoretical ability of phalanx pikes to partially block or disrupt arrows meant for the back ranks of a phalanx formation

Once that silly little exercise is over, it becomes clear that even if you think the aspis is inferior to the scutum or vice-versa, it is still perfectly plausible to give them the same value in-game. Since statting does not permit infinite distinction, we must acknowledge they both (at the very least, ARGUABLY) qualify as "big-ass, high-quality shields." Because further precision is impossible, a 4 for both of them.

Sure if hoplites and roman cohorts were the only units in EB a finer distinction would be possible. But the limitations of the engine prevent a holodeck-like experience.

Edit: By the way, I resent the accusation that I look to EB as an end-all, be-all historical authority (the accusation made by certain people who don't like to be disagreed with). It is easy to recognize, of course, instances in which the team has decided to be very credible to ancient legends (the lakes in Tolosa, the efficacy of drugs used by the Gesaetae, etc.). But I'm not going to ignore their exceptionally high-quality work or insult them by implication, especially when it is incredibly fun to conquer Tolosa and realize the team included that story. There are plenty of things I'd quibble with in their representation - but the fact remains that as a historical recreation of 272 BC in the form of a video game, EB has done a better job that I thought was possible.

[Foot]

Wow, this has suddenly turned into a thread that I really don't want to read anymore. I think that some of what people are saying is coming close to stepping over the line from being critical to being insulting. Sometimes, I really really do not like reading these forums. Its so very easy to criticise, and its so very easy to judge and, in doing so, upset. It is a lot harder to work in a volunteer team to create something complex and, dare I say, it beautiful with dozens of conflicting characters all attempting to work with each other. There have been a plethora of these statting threads and they have invariably attacked and insulted the team - the condensed versions is "oh look, there are some apparent inconsistencies. EB must be a bunch of morons for doing that. i can do it much better, here is my work that i did and is so much better because i know why i did it". I find the tone of these posts hateful and their insinuations of the team hurtful.

For people who quite obviously get so much enjoyment from the mod, it seems that some of you have no sense of respect for those who brought it to you. The EB Team have invariably put their life on hold to work on this mod, I know I have, and to have the work of the fine people that I have known disparaged in such a fashion as I find in this thread and in others is not something that I wish to continue engaging in. Insult away, you fixers of things broken, I hope that your mods are as successfully balanced as you wish them to be. However, this is a suggestion thread for EBII, and as the statting system in M2TW cannot be assumed to work in any fashion close enough to that of RTW to make connections, I would suggest that you move discussion about EBI stats to the EBI forums.

Foot

[micko]

I always asked my self,why such a mod like this(a great mod,if not the best) hase so low attention,and why are there only 10-15 people that are active and actually post on EB forums(here and at TWC).And the ancer to that is the post above. :shame:

[Kival]

I cannot agree, micko. EB 2 has a big attention as you can see in the preview-threads. Most of the people are just not so loud-voiced and enjoys it without discussing here all the time. And I understand Foots anger very well, some - and too much! - comments here and at the twc are insulting for real to the team. It's not the problem to make other stat-adjustings or to question the reasons but some people act as if the teams are morons and that's just not ok and some should think about their manners.

[Tellos Athenaios]

This brings me to a very important point, regarding the accuracy and historicity of the EB mod - that it lacks to accurately portray, in various units, the reflection of historical attributes (such as armor, weapons, and renown historical evidence) through its stat values.

Well your example isn't very good, I'd say. As I understand it, the lineothorax (the linen armour) is essentially much like kevlar and makes actually quite good armour and rather better than low grade chain mail: something that most legionaries would be outfitted with I'd imagine. The scutum of legionaries is a rather light shield too: useful for screening your body and quick movements, but not as useful I'd say when confronted with a heavy axe or similar blunt-force weapon.

This kind of reasoning becomes all the more relevant when you consider that a soldiers equipment may not always have been in perfect condition.

EDIT: And I should note that I don't do the history part in EB2 and am not a historian. So you may want to take the above with a grain of salt, or lookup some more reference material... :shrug: But the bottom line is that when it comes to equipment/artifacts and history in general “common sense” is not a really good way to assess comparative performance of something.

[Megas Pyrrhos]

Wow. I didn't want my innocent post at the top of the page 4 to create random arguments and silly accusations. I just wanted to note that fast units, if the EB team thinks so, should be made sure to be given the fast_moving attribute when the time comes....so that there is more variety of uses for units, or more differences in how they're used. I meant only the best intentions to note something and try to improve upon something that was perhaps missing in EB1. :book:

[B-Wing]

While I don't share micko's general tone, I basically agree with his points. I don't think any of the recent posts (i.e., on page 4) of this thread have been insulting toward the EB team. I understand that as a team member, it's probably very easy to think of the mod sort of like your child, and as such be very protective of it and easily hurt by any criticism of it, but I don't think anyone here feels that the mod is seriously flawed or lacking in quality. It is, bar none, the greatest mod I've ever played, and I absolutely love it. And we're all eagerly anticipating EB2's release and enjoy talking about it. So no team member should have their feelings hurt by some fans discussing their ideas with each other. Not every thought expressed on these forums is necessarily directed at the team. If a few people want to debate how they think two units ought to compare, that shouldn't offend someone who actually is on the team. We're not trying to say, "Hey, EB guys, this is how you ought to have done it!" We're just tossing our ideas around, as much to each other as to anyone on the team. Don't take anybody's thoughts about the mod personally.

And as for the Bart Simpson picture, that was just funny. Nothing more, nothing less.

[bobbin]

OK,I have read it all cearfuly and the only thing that I came up with that culd be "insolting" to the team was ......

When people criticise a part of the mod as being deficient and then give no good reason why, beyond their own preconceptions, it is pretty insulting.
If you must have a specific example: "I'm just seeking a system that is consistent and reliable" implies that the current one is neither and comes across as insulting (although I don't think SlickNicaG69 intended it to be), a similar thread currently going on the TWC forums is full of prime examples.

Your post on the other hand was clearly insulting, if you accuse people of being immature you might want to look up the word "oxymoron" before commenting again in that manner.

[King of Finland]

Wow, this has suddenly turned into a thread that I really don't want to read anymore. I think that some of what people are saying is coming close to stepping over the line from being critical to being insulting. Sometimes, I really really do not like reading these forums. Its so very easy to criticise, and its so very easy to judge and, in doing so, upset. It is a lot harder to work in a volunteer team to create something complex and, dare I say, it beautiful with dozens of conflicting characters all attempting to work with each other. There have been a plethora of these statting threads and they have invariably attacked and insulted the team - the condensed versions is "oh look, there are some apparent inconsistencies. EB must be a bunch of morons for doing that. i can do it much better, here is my work that i did and is so much better because i know why i did it". I find the tone of these posts hateful and their insinuations of the team hurtful.

For people who quite obviously get so much enjoyment from the mod, it seems that some of you have no sense of respect for those who brought it to you. The EB Team have invariably put their life on hold to work on this mod, I know I have, and to have the work of the fine people that I have known disparaged in such a fashion as I find in this thread and in others is not something that I wish to continue engaging in. Insult away, you fixers of things broken, I hope that your mods are as successfully balanced as you wish them to be. However, this is a suggestion thread for EBII, and as the statting system in M2TW cannot be assumed to work in any fashion close enough to that of RTW to make connections, I would suggest that you move discussion about EBI stats to the EBI forums.

Foot

Maybe you should just quit working on the mod if it's too much trouble? I don't read every post on these forums, but nevertheless I haven't seen a single post, which I'd count as insulting towards the creators of the mod. Most love it and simply worship you and the rest of the team. I bet every person here is ready name their children after you, and the only purpose of the criticism in this thread is the desire to make something they love even better.

PS. I love the mod and hope it will be finished. I also hope that I will one day have many little Feet. (insert smiley here)

[antisocialmunky]

Another Makedonian Preview?

You are such a tease, you know.

[Mediolanicus]

removed


I agree with certain points SlickNica brings forward here. I don't see the need to change the EB system though. I did find it a very interesting discussion (when on topic).

However I do understand the EB team feels attacked, since SlickNica's somewhat adds to his criticism that "the EB team clearly didn't think about this and that it would be better to introduce a system that is consistent and actually has been thought over."

This is what insults the team.

He is free to not agree that some body armours are less strong than the EB team thinks, or that carrying 15kg of armour for hours on the march and during battle does not influence your agility during all stages of battle, or that armour protecting parts which are not protected by anything else should have more weight in-game than good body armour.
That said he has put forth some very good points and the only things I don't agree with is that he implies that the EB team has done this at random and was inconsistent, and that he implies that the difference between a good armoured soldier and a naked barbarian used to fighting war, would mean that the barbarian didn't stand a chance. (or at least that the fight was more one sided than you would interpret from the EB stats).


There is however one thing that is rather insulting to Foot, to the EB team, to good taste and to everyone here, and that are the last two "contributions" of micko in this thread, who is clearly a tad immature to understand people study or have a job and creating a game like EB takes a lot of time, effort and organization - and frustration pretty much every time they come to the forums -, or to understand what history actually is (the interpretation of historical evidence).

So for anyone on the EB team this game is very serious, micko. It takes up hours and hours of their private life, working for free and for something we can and will enjoy.

And you're interpol reference isn't that bad, since every historian is more or less like a detective. And just like you can go to court with only assumptions pulled out of thin air, you must have some evidence to back up a historical claim.


To the EB team: Guys, remember that for every guy complaining or insulting, there are 20 fans not posting and enjoying and admiring your work, waiting patiently for EB II.

To SlickNica: I think everyone knows you did not want to insult the team, you just wished to start a discussion. Beware of implying that something is illogical just because you don't immediately see the logic behind it.



Sorry for any grammatical or spelling errors in this long patch of text.

[scutum]

This thread has an interesting question which is hard to answer without knowing fully the possibilities of the M2TW engine. Since the poor AI is hardcoded, I have already asked CA for the AI source code or ways to modify it, but I have a feeling that the universe will suffer heat death before they will share it.

Unfortunately I can't play RTW with anything else than with the Romani or when really stretching with Carthage or successor states. It just doesn't feel right to build an empire with a barbarian faction, which to my knowledge practically all collapsed after their charismatic and successful leader died (huns, mongols etc.). Important thing about Rome is that it lasted. So I would like to see a more challenging campaign for Romani in EBII. I tried adding money for the AI factions, but it didn't appear to have much impact.

The gameplay details and leader events of EB I were very nice. More storyline type events for leaders would be nice so that the missions would have more depth than just capture settlement or go to a Spartan school etc.

[Lucius Verus]

Eastern (Pontic, Parthian etc.) cavalry units must be better than western factions

[XSamatan]

This thread has an interesting question which is hard to answer without knowing fully the possibilities of the M2TW engine. Since the poor AI is hardcoded, I have already asked CA for the AI source code or ways to modify it, but I have a feeling that the universe will suffer heat death before they will share it.

Unfortunately I can't play RTW with anything else than with the Romani or when really stretching with Carthage or successor states. It just doesn't feel right to build an empire with a barbarian faction, which to my knowledge practically all collapsed after their charismatic and successful leader died (huns, mongols etc.). Important thing about Rome is that it lasted. So I would like to see a more challenging campaign for Romani in EBII. I tried adding money for the AI factions, but it didn't appear to have much impact.

The gameplay details and leader events of EB I were very nice. More storyline type events for leaders would be nice so that the missions would have more depth than just capture settlement or go to a Spartan school etc.

Actually the AI is quite modable in MTW2, that releases a big bunch of possbilities, and you can be sure that EB2 will use a lot of them. However, there are some facts that couldn't be broken by the community by now, so some of the big bugs of vanilla MTW2 that can be found in all of the mods will be found also in our mod if we can't get behind some behaviours.
Speaking about the Romans, did you read the preview about teh election system (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=120753)? I'm sure that this will bring new depth into the game and will assure a deep 'bond' between player and ingame characters.

XSamatan

[Mediolanicus]

Eastern (Pontic, Parthian etc.) cavalry units must be better than western factions

They already are...

Numidians, Spaniards, Illurians, Tracians, Gaul/Belgians weren't rubbish either in that department, but the Eastern cavalry beats them all...




Unfortunately I can't play RTW with anything else than with the Romani or when really stretching with Carthage or successor states. It just doesn't feel right to build an empire with a barbarian faction, which to my knowledge practically all collapsed after their charismatic and successful leader died (huns, mongols etc.). Important thing about Rome is that it lasted. So I would like to see a more challenging campaign for Romani in EBII. I tried adding money for the AI factions, but it didn't appear to have much impact.

The gameplay details and leader events of EB I were very nice. More storyline type events for leaders would be nice so that the missions would have more depth than just capture settlement or go to a Spartan school etc.

EB will of course never be Romano-centric, but seeing the Romani previews and the new government system and trait system with imperium, it'll be more of a challenge.

The sotrylines aren't a good idea IMO. I don't like "missions". I like to play at my own speed and following my own choices.

[anubis88]

Edit: Nevermind

[scutum]

Actually the AI is quite modable in MTW2, that releases a big bunch of possbilities, and you can be sure that EB2 will use a lot of them. However, there are some facts that couldn't be broken by the community by now, so some of the big bugs of vanilla MTW2 that can be found in all of the mods will be found also in our mod if we can't get behind some behaviours.

I have little experience (although not in total war games) and much more interest in game AI development. If you have some problems I would be happy to review them. After some search I found the interactive tutorial for AI modding, but that doesn't quite offer the options I was trying to find. It's so frustrating in TW series when the AI can be easily beaten even in VH battles by simply choosing the battlefield and letting AI walk straight into the trap, which it always does. Battle tactics could also use some refinement.

[scutum]

The sotrylines aren't a good idea IMO. I don't like "missions". I like to play at my own speed and following my own choices.

"Missions" are a part of history. It's tricky to balance gameplay and historical detail. Of course it can't be too historical because it wouldn't allow any interaction. Then it would only be a story.

[Lucius Verus]

They already are...

Numidians, Spaniards, Illurians, Tracians, Gaul/Belgians weren't rubbish either in that department, but the Eastern cavalry beats them all...

in EB Pontics didnt have their own cavalry, I mean, Pontus must have their own cavalry and this cavalry unit must available only Pontus

[seienchin]

Excuse me, I also think Micko is overreacting, BUT
people, who are treating every kind of critisism and complaining as childish, always go with the majority, idolise the EB Teams as gods and critisize people only based on their writing skills are also kind of douchebags themselves.
If people had ignored Micko or used some persuasion like ludens does, the whole thing wouldnt have become such an argument.

[Mediolanicus]

"Missions" are a part of history. It's tricky to balance gameplay and historical detail. Of course it can't be too historical because it wouldn't allow any interaction. Then it would only be a story.

What do you mean by a story?

The game is all about creating your own history starting from 272BC, not recreating history as it really happened (which would be impossible with the engine and kinda hit the replay value rather hard).


in EB Pontics didnt have their own cavalry, I mean, Pontus must have their own cavalry and this cavalry unit must available only Pontus

In EB Pontos could recruit lots of cavalry units in its provinces. You can be sure those recruited in Pontus consisted out of locally breed horses and Pontic riders.


Of course, other faction that may conquer Pontos can also recruit those same horses and riders...


Excuse me, I also think Micko is overreacting, BUT
people, who are treating every kind of critisism and complaining as childish, always go with the majority, idolise the EB Teams as gods and critisize people only based on their writing skills are also kind of douchebags themselves.

Agreed. As long as the critism is based on something and one doesn't automatically conclude it must have been an oversight, an inconsistence or just plain stupidity to come to another conclusion.

[scutum]

What do you mean by a story?

Story is a common term for a description of a sequence of events.


Game is all about creating your own history starting from 272BC, not recreating history as it really happened (which would be impossible with the engine and kinda hit the replay value rather hard).

Which makes me wonder what it means when a game is called historical.

[abou]

The hope of EB is that you are given an historical jumping-off point of 272 BC. Everything that happens after that is up to you. We do not, and never have, stated that EB is a history-on-rails game.

[scutum]

The hope of EB is that you are given an historical jumping-off point of 272 BC. Everything that happens after that is up to you. We do not, and never have, stated that EB is a history-on-rails game.

Exactly. However, the reforms do intervene with this policy. When events change for example Marian may never exist and thus eliminating Marian reforms. Even if reforms ever take place the uniforms, weaponry, banners, symbols etc most likely would be different.

[abou]

We believe that there are certain factors driving events. We call the Marian reforms that name because it is a convention everyone understands, but something similar would have likely happened regardless as long as Rome continued to expand. The adoption of the thureos was pretty much a foregone conclusion by our game start. There are certain caveats, of course, but as far as we are concerned, the game is quite historical.

[XSamatan]

This is not correct IMHO. The reforms as they are represented in EB are 'pictures' of what would happen if an empire would expand in a certain way. If you expand in other ways, build i.e. not the required buildings then the reform won't take place or takes place a later time, when you got too much provinces to get all your army from Italy itself for the Romans as example. So the reforms are a optional feature and not a must. However this is EB1 thema and should be discussed there, the reforms in EB2 are depicted in the previews.

XSamatan

[scutum]

Does this mean that EBII has different options/versions of reformed units?

[abou]

We have limited resources. We can't make different reformed units for every possible permutation. Then again, how many different possibilities could there be? I don't think anyone on the team would seriously consider a hoplite reform for Celtic factions if a Koinon Hellenon player was particularly successful in Europe.

[scutum]

We have limited resources. We can't make different reformed units for every possible permutation. Then again, how many different possibilities could there be? I don't think anyone on the team would seriously consider a hoplite reform for Celtic factions if a Koinon Hellenon player was particularly successful in Europe.

Only one thing is certain. No one can predict the future. Unless you believe in destiny and that everything is predetermined. However, I understand you point of view. My point was that you are imposing fixed elements after 272 BC and adding missions won't do more damage to the players timeline. One doesn't have to complete missions even in the original game. Historically especially later Rome was torn by internal conflicts and maybe that could be portrayed in some way. Like the senate could assassinate a general or forbid him from doing something etc.

[abou]

No, that is fair enough and I'm glad that you understand. Missions are something that we haven't discussed; however, there are some clear possibilities. Only problem is how to execute it. As the player, you are the king, you are the chieftan, you are the senate. There isn't an external entity guiding you: you are the state. We could try to use missions to show certain objectives that need to be obtained that always would be (e.g. Alexander's grave), but it's still needs to be decided.

[scutum]

No, that is fair enough and I'm glad that you understand. Missions are something that we haven't discussed; however, there are some clear possibilities. Only problem is how to execute it. As the player, you are the king, you are the chieftan, you are the senate. There isn't an external entity guiding you: you are the state. We could try to use missions to show certain objectives that need to be obtained that always would be (e.g. Alexander's grave), but it's still needs to be decided.

The problem is that a successful general is no threat to the player. The general can't depose the player/senate. Player would need some motive for actions.

[Mediolanicus]

The problem is that a successful general is no threat to the player. The general can't depose the player/senate. Player would need some motive for actions.

There are two kinds of EB players I see here.

The one kind plays to win and want to create the best generals and so on.

The other kind role plays more, and does what those generals themselves would do (based on their traits). They create their own motives... their own story as you like to call it.

[abou]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. I don't see how a successful general dictates the needs for missions. If you mean as a usurper from within the players own faction, that is as much a possibility through the loyalty mechanic as it is a limitation of the TW engine.

[Ludens]

I've removed the trolling posts, but I've left the responses because others took up the discussion.

For the record: I think Foot responded too harshly to some ill-judged comments. That said: this forum is the home of EB, and people should be respectful of the team and their work. If you think the EB team is wrong, you can say so, but please be polite about it (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79193).

[scutum]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. I don't see how a successful general dictates the needs for missions.

It was just one example.

[Apázlinemjó]

in EB Pontics didnt have their own cavalry, I mean, Pontus must have their own cavalry and this cavalry unit must available only Pontus

My guess would be that at the beginning of the third century BC, Pontos didn't really have an "own" cavalry force, but the same as in the last days of the Achaemenid Empire. Which means the exra-heavies were Persians, as they were the ruling nobility, while the mediums and lights were Galatians, Anatolians, Pontic Greeks and later Scythians too. Though I have to admit this setup probably changed in the later periods (adopting the Successors-like cavalry), and that is missing from EB I in my opinion too.

On topic, I would like to see "fixed" morale stats at the Pontic elites (Chalkaspides, Pontikoi Thorakitai), because the 13 is just too low compared to the other units in the same class. When I wrote my paper about the Mithridatic Wars I focused on the politics more than on the actual battles, but I think the defeats against the SPQR don't prove that these guys were more likely to rout and were bad quality soldiers than the "others". Also the Pontic numbers were obviously exaggerated by the Romans and I'm sure none believes that at Chaeronea Sulla lost only 13 men, while Archelaus lost over 100 000. But If I'm wrong, then I would like to ask an EB member to explain me the reason behind the low morale. Thanks.

[Ludens]

I don't know about morale, but Watchman mentioned that the Pontic Thorakitai had been given lower stats than intended, and the Chalkaspides are in for an overhaul in EB2.

[athanaric]

in EB Pontics didnt have their own cavalry, I mean, Pontus must have their own cavalry and this cavalry unit must available only Pontus
It would be good if you argued why you think that is, instead of just saying "it must".
That said, Pontos has Cappadoccian Cavalry in EBI that I haven't seen with any other faction. Maybe we'll see more in EBII...

[Apázlinemjó]

I don't know about morale, but Watchman mentioned that the Pontic Thorakitai had been given lower stats than intended, and the Chalkaspides are in for an overhaul in EB2.

Yes, Watchman had a fix for Pontikoi Thorakitai (though, with that they were still inferior to anything which was heavier than a Thuerophoroi), and maybe I'm wrong, but I thought they were intended to be a near-elite/elite unit, which means the 13 morale is low. I'm glad the Chalkaspides is getting an overhaul in EB2.

Edit: And the cost between a Thureophoroi and a fixed Pontikoi Thorakitai is over 500 mnai.

[Rahl]

Wow. I didn't want my innocent post at the top of the page 4 to create random arguments and silly accusations. I just wanted to note that fast units, if the EB team thinks so, should be made sure to be given the fast_moving attribute when the time comes....so that there is more variety of uses for units, or more differences in how they're used. I meant only the best intentions to note something and try to improve upon something that was perhaps missing in EB1. :book:
Fast moving isn't a attribute like hardy or good vs. cavalry. IIRC it depends on the movement-animation the unit uses. In EB I there already were several different unit speeds. The faster ones are characterised by the fast moving "attribute" ingame. Though there are different speeds in this two groups of units e.g. the fast moving Thessalian cavalry is not as fast as the horse archers of the nomads.

[Noble Wrath]

in EB Pontics didnt have their own cavalry, I mean, Pontus must have their own cavalry and this cavalry unit must available only Pontus

If I am not mistaken, I remember an EB member's post stating that the team had found new evidence for a faction-specific heavy cavalry unit for Pontos. It was a while ago though and I can't find the exact post.

[vartan]

Yes, Watchman had a fix for Pontikoi Thorakitai (though, with that they were still inferior to anything which was heavier than a Thuerophoroi), and maybe I'm wrong, but I thought they were intended to be a near-elite/elite unit, which means the 13 morale is low. I'm glad the Chalkaspides is getting an overhaul in EB2.

Edit: And the cost between a Thureophoroi and a fixed Pontikoi Thorakitai is over 500 mnai.
They used to be known as Pontic Elite Inf (who knows?) but now Heavy Inf. So 13 is pretty great morale stat. Any more and you'd be :juggle2: all day long. For the tournament you play in (and you play as Pontos), the Pontikoi Thorakitai have 0.13 lethality swords as opposed to the former 0.1. And they have some other changes to their javelin attack and range.

[Apázlinemjó]

They used to be known as Pontic Elite Inf (who knows?) but now Heavy Inf. So 13 is pretty great morale stat. Any more and you'd be :juggle2: all day long. For the tournament you play in (and you play as Pontos), the Pontikoi Thorakitai have 0.13 lethality swords as opposed to the former 0.1. And they have some other changes to their javelin attack and range.

What we should know here is their role. Are they a near-elite/elite unit or just a "regular" one? And the fixed stats made them a bit better, but as I commented in the previous post, they are still useless. Paying almost 2k mnai for a unit which can barely handle regular light infantry (without AP) and light spearmen is just a waste of mnai, in my opinion.

Edit: So we need an EB team member who can help and enlighten us in the matter. *Tries to summon one of them with conjuration magic.*

Edit2: Ahh, edited the first sentence, I missunderstood your sentences. :D

[Megas Pyrrhos]

Fast moving isn't a attribute like hardy or good vs. cavalry. IIRC it depends on the movement-animation the unit uses. In EB I there already were several different unit speeds. The faster ones are characterised by the fast moving "attribute" ingame. Though there are different speeds in this two groups of units e.g. the fast moving Thessalian cavalry is not as fast as the horse archers of the nomads.


Yes indeed, but if you had read my first post earlier, then you would know I've already said that it is unit-model related. Otherwise, I'd just mosey on into the EDU and wrangle me up some fast movin' thureo-fast-oi. :book:

But its all good.

[Ludens]

What we should know here is their role. Are they a near-elite/elite unit or just a "regular" one?

Why would they be elite? They don't look like elite units to me, and AFAIK they were intended to replace the old-fashioned phalangite armies, suggesting they made up the rank-and-file.

[vartan]

What we should know here is their role. Are they a near-elite/elite unit or just a "regular" one? And the fixed stats made them a bit better, but as I commented in the previous post, they are still useless. Paying almost 2k mnai for a unit which can barely handle regular light infantry (without AP) and light spearmen is just a waste of mnai, in my opinion.

Edit: So we need an EB team member who can help and enlighten us in the matter. *Tries to summon one of them with conjuration magic.*

Edit2: Ahh, edited the first sentence, I missunderstood your sentences. :D
Those units are far from elite. Just because there were few of them on the field doesn't make them elite. :book:

[antisocialmunky]

I would take a look at how stamina is balanced in EB2. I think the bias against professional and city-based infantry that aren't Rome with regards to stamina should be re-examined from EB1 now that the guard mode bugs are largely gone. It makes it impossible to effectively assault positions since most enemy infantry will always have a slight but noticeable advantage in the stamina department until both units are exhausted. I mean, its not that bad but it seems equivalent to 3 or 4 points spread between attack/defense.

I think for EB1 length battles, the ideal stamina would be 'hardy' for all regular fighting units and then 'very hardy' if the unit deserves extra stamina. No stamina bonus should be exclusively given to city-levies and such(farmers are buff). That means hardy Neito and Hoplites so they don't completely dud against cheaper units that can keep a stamina bonus in a 10 minute battle.

[Apázlinemjó]

Why would they be elite? They don't look like elite units to me, and AFAIK they were intended to replace the old-fashioned phalangite armies, suggesting they made up the rank-and-file.


Those units are far from elite. Just because there were few of them on the field doesn't make them elite. :book:

I thought their original name was something like "Pontic Elite Infantry", though I'm not sure. Anyway their description says they are not elite, but a good heavy infantry. Okay, nevermind with the morale question about them, then the 13 is correct. I hope their "combat" stats get an overhaul in EB2.

[Cambyses]

Except that in M2TW, using guard mode means that you get pushed backwards quite fast when fighting heavy infantry - and very fast when fighting cavalry. This breaks your formation with often terminal consequences. So, I dont think guard mode will cause the same issues in EB2 as it (maybe) does in EB1. I think the key thing with stamina is to slow the battles down, and lessen the impact of cavalry charges, then it wont be necessary to run everywhere. Hopefully the AI can be taught this simple fact as well.

[vartan]

I thought their original name was something like "Pontic Elite Infantry", though I'm not sure. Anyway their description says they are not elite, but a good heavy infantry. Okay, nevermind with the morale question about them, then the 13 is correct. I hope their "combat" stats get an overhaul in EB2.
Correct? You're joking right? I'm sure you didn't mean to offend, that you meant to say that 13 is "reasonable", not "correct". What is correct? incorrect? :no: Oh my good friend. And you have a good memory. They were formerly named Elite Infantry of the Pontiks.

[Moros]

they are not elite, they are armoured.

[Torres84]

I'd love to see kind of tech advance, since there are no historical characters ingame like Julius Caesar or Augustus... why would we have to stick with the historical parameters? I mean, maybe you could make some scripting that decides whether or not Roman receives lorica segmentata or whether or not (like a switch that activates certain units, certain new buildings, ships etc)

: - D

[Captain Jazzy]

Im fairly sure its been stated many, many, many times that LS wont be included and anyway how would you implement reserch/tech advances in a MedII mod? This isnt Empires and I dont think it would fit in Eb at all...

[plutoboyz]

I'd love to see kind of tech advance, since there are no historical characters ingame like Julius Caesar or Augustus... why would we have to stick with the historical parameters? I mean, maybe you could make some scripting that decides whether or not Roman receives lorica segmentata or whether or not (like a switch that activates certain units, certain new buildings, ships etc)

: - D
LS??

IRL, LS was rarely used, and even roman legionaire were barely worn armor. only when inspection or parade.

[Torres84]

LS??

IRL, LS was rarely used, and even roman legionaire were barely worn armor. only when inspection or parade.

Yesss I know !! but that's what I mean, not a research tree like in ETW but a script-like with objectives that you would have to fulfill (like in reforms) in order to achieve some "minor" advances, or the option to build certain things to engrandeur the roman res publica or empire (like minor obelisks in rome that gives you certain morale bonuses or trade bonuses only allowed after you conquer the Ptolemaioi, or the expositions of barbarian kings and nobles once you have annihilated the gauls)

I know LS it was not used widely IRL but it would be great to have that option if you have the ability to accomplish the necessary objectives. Like secondary objectives. : )

[HFox]

Not sure if this is possible......but I would like to see cavalry charge through and out of the other side of the unit they are engaging....or at least a chance of this.

[abou]

Not sure if this is possible......but I would like to see cavalry charge through and out of the other side of the unit they are engaging....or at least a chance of this.

I wouldn't know how to do that. I imagine it would be a little work with collision detection, mass, and so forth. That would be heavy stuff. I don't think anyone on the team is in a position to do that with the current workload. We would really need to look for outside help on that.

[zamolxe]

Do you best on the campaign and battle AI! I think is the most important aspects of the game.

[President]

Not sure if this is possible......but I would like to see cavalry charge through and out of the other side of the unit they are engaging....or at least a chance of this.

There is a chance of this it's called a... ... ... successful charge! ;D



But about my idea: A comprehensive weapons stat index. Such as Gladius -, Sarissa -, Chainmail -, Lorica Hamataa -, etc. etc. etc...

[Aper]

Dunno if someone already pointed out this, but M2TW diplomacy and AI are not that of RTW, right?

They are in fact very moddable (there are many and very different AIs on TWC and other fan sites).

To some people, try to visit TW Center to inform you about M2TW modding before posting false infos as they were well known facts.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Diplomacy is still the same (only you now get an indication of the answer), and not moddable at all. BAI en CAI are somewhat moddable, but not very.

[antisocialmunky]

CAI can be moddable to a reasonable spot so that's not a really big problem. BAI... I dunno. There are groups out there that claim that the AI is much better though I haven't seen a good formation AI.

[Gabeed]

Bear with me if this is not possible (I've never played Medieval 2) or has already been discussed, but the biggest problem in EB for me, and is in fact a problem in all Total War games I've played, is the lack of internal civil wars in factions. This is why we see the Ptolemies become so powerful most of the time in EB 1. This is why you can have a king with the charisma and martial skill of a dead crocodile and still conquer the world. This is why I (and probably many other players) often lost interest in a campaign after about 50 years, with no civilization that can harm me and no potential civil wars. I recall Barbarian Invasion vanilla having the most rudimentary of concepts for this (with Roman Empire rebels cropping up and whatnot), but it wasn't great. If only the Creative Assembly would take some hints from Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis: Rome, we'd have a game that is wonderfully immersive and realistic in more aspects of why battles are fought, rather than just focusing on increasing the graphical quality of the battlefield.

[Duguntz]

I want to see the Lorica Segmentata!!!

Forget about it. totally! The lorica segmentata came of use around 9 BC. From 9 BC to 14 AD, where the script stops, isn't a preiod long enough to justify a new imperial unit!

So, get used to the lorica hamata!

[Mediolanicus]

Isn't Tux an EB member? So I think that was a joke...

If yours is a joke too, please make it a more obvious one the next time.

[bobbin]

Yes, Tux is a long time member of the team. He was quoting the daring new historical argument that has forced us to rethink our whole position on Lorica Segmentata.

[Lusitani]

What I would really like to see fixed is....a fast release date :P

[Hax]

Bear with me if this is not possible (I've never played Medieval 2) or has already been discussed, but the biggest problem in EB for me, and is in fact a problem in all Total War games I've played, is the lack of internal civil wars in factions. This is why we see the Ptolemies become so powerful most of the time in EB 1. This is why you can have a king with the charisma and martial skill of a dead crocodile and still conquer the world. This is why I (and probably many other players) often lost interest in a campaign after about 50 years, with no civilization that can harm me and no potential civil wars. I recall Barbarian Invasion vanilla having the most rudimentary of concepts for this (with Roman Empire rebels cropping up and whatnot), but it wasn't great. If only the Creative Assembly would take some hints from Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis: Rome, we'd have a game that is wonderfully immersive and realistic in more aspects of why battles are fought, rather than just focusing on increasing the graphical quality of the battlefield.

There will be some form of representation of internal strife within factions. How it works exactly, I can't say (and I don't really know, actually :clown:)


This is why we see the Ptolemies become so powerful most of the time in EB 1. This is why you can have a king with the charisma and martial skill of a dead crocodile

I see what you did there.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

There will be some form of representation of internal strife within factions. How it works exactly, I can't say (and I don't really know, actually :clown:)


Ooohh...I'm intrigued, sounds good. I think, in all honesty, the only real weakness of EB1 is the diplomatic/political side - and that's not really the fault of the EB team, simply a limitation of the R:TW engine. If that aspect is significantly improved then.....EB2 is going to be something else....as one poster said, there should be a better representation of the why of warfare, as well as the how.

If there was one thing that I would want to see, that I think is lacking in EB1 (and this might not be possible) is some way of representing guerilla tactics. Ambushes should catch armies spread out, for example - not in battle formation... or reconaissance (cavalry) units, and in enemy territory, foraging parties.

[Horatius Flaccus]

It's good to see you now are an actual EB team member (instead of an 'auxiliary') Hax, congratulations!

And I'm very interested in the way EB is going to handel civil strife, it's one of the hardest things to represent well. BC 3.0 has what seems like a good system, but it could be too 'artificial'.

[Rahl]

If there was one thing that I would want to see, that I think is lacking in EB1 (and this might not be possible) is some way of representing guerilla tactics. Ambushes should catch armies spread out, for example - not in battle formation...
Thats actually possible in M2TW. I was as surprised as my enemy when my King of Norway caught an enemy force in marching formation. The where standing in a long line while I was able to position my troops on every other place of the battlefield, I could attack them from the sides and crushed them. But I was not able to do this again, mainly because I play EB again.

[bobbin]

Thats actually possible in M2TW. I was as surprised as my enemy when my King of Norway caught an enemy force in marching formation. The where standing in a long line while I was able to position my troops on every other place of the battlefield, I could attack them from the sides and crushed them. But I was not able to do this again, mainly because I play EB again.

Eh? This is what always happens when an ambush is successful, in both RTW and M2TW.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Eh? This is what always happens when an ambush is successful, in both RTW and M2TW.

Really? I have succesfully ambushed (and been ambushed) and wouldn't say that the ambushed armies fairly represent an army on the move.

[XSamatan]

Than your ambush wasn't successful 100%. If it is, your would have get the situation bobbin was referring to, but otherwise the enemy would have time to organize his army. This feature is hardcoded both in RTW as in MTW2.

XSamatan

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Thanks.... I've obviously been unlucky. I look forward to some proper guerilla tactics.... Does it make a difference what sort of units are ambushing, or is it purely chance (if you know..)?

[Rahl]

Eh? This is what always happens when an ambush is successful, in both RTW and M2TW.
Oh...
I never saw that before, are there other conditions to be met? Like the army wants to move where your ambushing troops are standing or the tile next to them?
I didn't ambush that often, but I had successful ones and never saw that, do you need at least an good ambusher as general?

[SillySirius]

I've had enemy armies led by captains ambush me and it should be moving into any tile next to the ambushing army that springs it.

One thing that i find annoying is when you have spotted the ambush and you go to fight and the screen pops up saying you were ambushed.

[Davil92]

I hope this thread is not dead and someone reads this!
Aside from factions,ai problems and all the other big problems i'have a little request: i'd like to see a little more blood and guts on the battlefield... it's all soo clean! kinda irrealistic if you ask me... also it could be optional like the guys in the nude.
of course this is not a priority, it just would be very cool if one of those nake really strong guys after ripping a roman soldier apart could be red and drenching in blood... or even just seeing it on the floor would be nice!

[XSamatan]

We talked internally about this aspect, and came to the conclusion to be as near to reality as possible, meaning there won't be great blood rivers in battles, but you will 'see' wounds and dirt on units.
But, yeah, as you said, that is a very low priority...;)

XSamatan

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

We talked internally about this aspect, and came to the conclusion to be as near to reality as possible, meaning there won't be great blood rivers in battles, but you will 'see' wounds and dirt on units.
But, yeah, as you said, that is a very low priority...;)

XSamatan

Aaaahh...is that what the marks are on the Boii and Getai preview vids...I did wonder.

[Moros]

No that's the skins.

[Jackaloboulos]

CTD removal is probably the biggest one.

But I'd like to see the 'C's replaced with 'K's in from maps and Faction graphics for Hellenikoi factions (for example, Arche Seleukeia -> Arkhe Seleukeia), as well as from the text files (although these I can alter myself). The same applies with 'U's and 'V's for the Romani. Finally, as some others have said, I would tone down the AI Money Script and/or find further means to make blockades and economic warfare more painful and effective against the AI.

[Ca Putt]

I may be wrong but afaik the c in Arche (or many other transcripted greek words) belongs to the greek letter CHI which is transcribed ch rather than X.

[XSamatan]

But I'd like to see the 'C's replaced with 'K's in from maps and Faction graphics for Hellenikoi factions (for example, Arche Seleukeia -> Arkhe Seleukeia), as well as from the text files (although these I can alter myself). The same applies with 'U's and 'V's for the Romani.

Get yourself a book about historical linguistics, read it, and post again.

[Ca Putt]

so I was right?

[athanaric]

Yes.

[Ichon]

I've had enemy armies led by captains ambush me and it should be moving into any tile next to the ambushing army that springs it.

One thing that i find annoying is when you have spotted the ambush and you go to fight and the screen pops up saying you were ambushed.

You have to "spring" the Ambush. Send in a single unit ahead and enter as reinforcements or enter the battle and retreat- the ambush is then sprung and your main engaging army is free to attack without ambush.

Main difference I'd like to see for EB2 is that foot skirmishers are handled differently. It should be possible now with generally slower speeds of infantry that the harrying ability of skirmishers is a bit better modeled. Not sure the mechanics are totally friendly to this but... hopefully something can be done. If most skirmishers can also get bonus in more terrains(not all obviously but more broad than single terrain unless that is all that culture likely ever experienced) and then other units get more negative values for some terrains as well.

[Olaf The Great]

EDIT:Changed point of post

I has idears

1)Use a similar campaign AI as Graculs, Lusteds, etc from Stainless Steel
2)Remove Merchants, don't even think about them
and a question

What are you going to do with princesses? As I understand it there were some princesses being married off between the hellenes.

[fomalhaut]

my absolute biggest complaint is that i never feel like i am doing damage to an enemy due to their self destructive A.I but i guess that's just an A.I. problem.

The spamming of elites reallllly makes killing them not as a great achievement but as a chore. When you see Agema on the battlefield you should say "woah", and to rout an enemy agema or similar elite should be a relatively big accomplishment. in EB its nothing but Extraodinarii/Hanupim/Agema/Silver Shield/Bronze Shield/Epilektoi Hoplite and really takes down the value of these elite units.

I do like the way the MTW system is being used to make the process of arming your citizens and sending them to war (citizens being quite rare) by limiting recruitment of elites and such.

[Jackaloboulos]

Get yourself a book about historical linguistics, read it, and post again.

I realize that your comment was partly dismissive, but do you have a book you would recommend?



I may be wrong but afaik the c in Arche (or many other transcripted greek words) belongs to the greek letter CHI which is transcribed ch rather than X.

Wait, who said anything about X?

[vartan]

Wait, who said anything about X?
It's not uncommon to see a confusion of X, KH, CH, and so on. Orthography, transcription, and IPA representations are three different things and easily confused when thrown out there without any further description. The transcription Arche can be (mis)read in a variety of ways. If one reads the the last consonant in that term as the Ancient Greek X (chi, regardless of which transcription you use), you'd get either a fricative (turbulent sound such as in the first consonant of the or shame) or a stop (the first consonant in kite). I know there was a shift to the latter since modern Hellenophones pronounce a stop, but I don't think there is consensus on when this shift occurs.

[XSamatan]

I realize that your comment was partly dismissive....

No it is not, saying something while having no arguments at hand to support your point of view and furthermore postulate a theory like yours, well, that's imprudent at least.

If you tell me you native tongue I surely can suggest a book about this topic.

XSamatan

[Moros]

Why need a book? There isn't anyone in the world who'd transcribe a chi by a kh. Alcibiades14, while a Kappa might be best be transcribed as a k, and not as a c (like the k sound is written in latin). The c's in our Greek do not represent the k-sound of a kappa. It's the ch sound of the Greek letter chi, often transliterated as an x, which we transcribed as ch.

Look here for a table containing the most common ways of transliterations of Greek to a Latin alphabet (this way you don't have to find yourself that book):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration_of_Greek_to_the_Latin_Alphabet
Now the ch from arche represents the Chi of classical Greek, the third last letter from the first table. As you can see, it's transliterated and transcribed as a 'ch'.

[Jackaloboulos]

It's not uncommon to see a confusion of X, KH, CH, and so on. Orthography, transcription, and IPA representations are three different things and easily confused when thrown out there without any further description. The transcription Arche can be (mis)read in a variety of ways. If one reads the the last consonant in that term as the Ancient Greek X (chi, regardless of which transcription you use), you'd get either a fricative (turbulent sound such as in the first consonant of the or shame) or a stop (the first consonant in kite). I know there was a shift to the latter since modern Hellenophones pronounce a stop, but I don't think there is consensus on when this shift occurs.

Ah. My understanding, which I'm by no means sure is correct, had been that X is simply an aspirated kappa--in which case it seemed, to me, anyway, more natural to use "kh," to specify that it is not a fricative. Of course, I'd defer to you guys on that, but it struck me as odd when I saw "ch" in-game.



No it is not, saying something while having no arguments at hand to support your point of view and furthermore postulate a theory like yours, well, that's imprudent at least.

If you tell me you native tongue I surely can suggest a book about this topic.

XSamatan

My apologies, then--clearly, I misread your tone. My native tongue is English, and if you have a historical linguistics book you'd particularly recommend, I would really appreciate it, as I'm building a summer reading list.

In any case, I do stand by my wish to see more effectual blockades and economic warfare in EB2, although I recognize that it isn't easy to balance that out with monetary assistance scripts, which I assume are going to return.

[vartan]

Ah. My understanding, which I'm by no means sure is correct, had been that X is simply an aspirated kappa--in which case it seemed, to me, anyway, more natural to use "kh," to specify that it is not a fricative. Of course, I'd defer to you guys on that, but it struck me as odd when I saw "ch" in-game.
You're right to think as you do. From what little understanding I do have of Greek as it stands today, your orthographic X would (at least usually) be pronounced as a voiceless velar stop, and in the case of Greek you're probably right in that it's aspirated as in the 'k' in kite, not unaspirated as the 'k' in sky.

[XSamatan]

Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (Studies in Language Companion Series, V. 12.) - Harm Pinkster (Editor)

A Natural History of Latin - Tore Janson

These could be a good try, but a search at your local university/school library about "latin linguistics" could provide more results too.

XSamatan

[vartan]

You also might want to look at the series of papers released about Latin linguistics known as the "selected papers from the Nth International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics" (mainly late 80s early 90s; N can be the first, second, I've even seen one for the sixth colloquium).

[TheLastDays]

Well there's really not many issues I have with EB1.

One thing I'd like to see fixed is stability, but I guess when you're pushing an enginge to the limit(s), like EB does, that's just what comes along with it...
But I have gotten used to saving before hitting the "End Turn" button and before every battle... it's still annoying when you've just finished a battle against 2.500 Gauls, worked hard to overcome them and then the game crashes but at least you don't lose much more ;)

[XSamatan]

The MTW2 environment and its engine are much more stable than RTW 1.5; at least CTD's after battles won't be that usual anymore but also bugs coming from other RTW specific issues won't appear anymore.

[Olaf The Great]

Isn't it nice that most of the more heinous issues with EB are fixed by simply -being- on M2TW? The horrible Campaign AI and CTD's, poof, gone!

Also, is there any possible way to implement a "new homeland" item that allows recruitment of factional troops in level 3/4 areas? Like Greece producing hoplites in Britain. I'm thinking after "assimilating" the culture it should be possible, like building a level 3 temple, a level 3 factional barracks, and a "cultural" building? (IE Heo Shrine, Odeon or something)

[Foot]

Also, is there any possible way to implement a "new homeland" item that allows recruitment of factional troops in level 3/4 areas? Like Greece producing hoplites in Britain. I'm thinking after "assimilating" the culture it should be possible, like building a level 3 temple, a level 3 factional barracks, and a "cultural" building? (IE Heo Shrine, Odeon or something)

Things will change massively in EBII, so Allied Provinces don't exist anymore.

Foot

[Populus Romanus]

Things will change massively in EBII, so Allied Provinces don't exist anymore.

Foot
No client rulers then?

[Foot]

No client rulers then?

I was referring to the government resources (Homeland, Subjugation, Allied) not the government buildings.

Foot

[fomalhaut]

will their be mechanics to represent degrees of assimilation rather than just the generic 'unrest' feature? i know that MTWII has religion and such.

also, how will the '-ization' process work? I hate when i take a city like Carthage, for instance, but it is at its highest level of Administration building so that even long after the culture/government would be romanized, it would still have mostly semitic buildings? I really like hellenizing europe, and for RTW the Strategy Map representation changes at the next level of government building, which usually coincides with the end of huge culture penalties

[TheLastDays]

The MTW2 environment and its engine are much more stable than RTW 1.5; at least CTD's after battles won't be that usual anymore but also bugs coming from other RTW specific issues won't appear anymore.

Now that is something I am really looking forward too :thumbsup:


I was referring to the government resources (Homeland, Subjugation, Allied) not the government buildings.


SO there will still be different government types and also those representing client kingdoms, right? 'Cause I was a bit shocked by that last post that said there won't be allied provinces

[Foot]

will their be mechanics to represent degrees of assimilation rather than just the generic 'unrest' feature? i know that MTWII has religion and such.

also, how will the '-ization' process work? I hate when i take a city like Carthage, for instance, but it is at its highest level of Administration building so that even long after the culture/government would be romanized, it would still have mostly semitic buildings? I really like hellenizing europe, and for RTW the Strategy Map representation changes at the next level of government building, which usually coincides with the end of huge culture penalties

Those are two very different things how a settlement looks is not associated with any game mechanics that we can introduce and modify as for colonization, you should probably check out the roman previews-

Foot

[geala]

I'm rather pleased with EB 1, my only wish would be better (historically more accurate, I mean) Greek units. I think that will happen.

[vartan]

historically more accurate
What does this mean anymore? History has room for more than one interpretation. That is why when 20 students turn in papers for a single prompt, and none of them answers the same way as any other, none of them fails for the simple fact that they did not achieve a single correct answer. EB has provided us with an interpretation of history that--and it is important to remember this--has not been constant, and has changed over time. I don't take it for granted because when entering in factional unit lists for EB Online I see name changes over and over again for units. Flexibility is a great trait in history.

[Ca Putt]

anything in particular you would like to suggest?

[Olaf The Great]

I suppose another thing I'd wish for is a more complete barbarian roster, an perhaps a "reformed pastoralism" government for the other nomads and possibly the barbarians.

[fomalhaut]

a more full Barbarian roster would definitely help, mid-late game are very rough on Barbarian factions. As eastern factions, Pahlava in particular, you keep getting new units until the very end.

This is an issue with everyone except the Getai i'd say, but in particular with the Lusotan. a very basic and effective roster, but after you can train Celtiberian Infantry you are kind of out on soldiers.

[Moros]

a more full Barbarian roster would definitely help, mid-late game are very rough on Barbarian factions. As eastern factions, Pahlava in particular, you keep getting new units until the very end.

This is an issue with everyone except the Getai i'd say, but in particular with the Lusotan. a very basic and effective roster, but after you can train Celtiberian Infantry you are kind of out on soldiers.
How can this be an issue for the gauls? They have two reforms during the span of the game! The casse have reforms as well and the Sweboz also unlock some units. The Iberians might not have reforms to offer but a very diverse selection of regionals and perhaps the best barbarian units. With their ap falcata's, ap soliferra and lots of armour for a barbarian faction!

[fomalhaut]

perhaps the span is just too close together, doesn't take long to conquer Iberian Peninsula and beyond that there isn't much of interest. Maybe I'm just using the unfair comparison of Pahlavan which has such a wide roster, from every Indian Unit to the long term reform. I had almost completed the game before i had Persian Hoplites and Theurophoroi.

[Olaf The Great]

It's also the buildings that are the problem too.
Factions like Romani and Pahlava have an obscene amount of buildings to choose that give a wide range of effects(+health +trade +mining) while the Barbarians, in comparison, get very very little with no real advantage on their part. It's true that during this period none of the barbarian factions(with the exception of the Getai, who -really- need an building tune up) achieved the level of sophistication that the others did, but they should get a "what if" reform similar to Hayasdan's.

Especially with Sauromatae and Saka Rauka I get the feeling that "Well I can just play Pahlava/Hayasdan/Baktria and get all this plus more"

[athanaric]

What I'd like to see is mercenary ships and some more thorough reforms for the Saka faction (i.e. not only the military aspect).



How can this be an issue for the gauls? They have two reforms during the span of the game! The casse have reforms as well and the Sweboz also unlock some units. The Iberians might not have reforms to offer but a very diverse selection of regionals and perhaps the best barbarian units. With their ap falcata's, ap soliferra and lots of armour for a barbarian faction!
Lusotannan are also the only Barbarian faction able to recruit siege weapons.

[TheLastDays]

Well iirc (I haven't played M2TW seriously in a long time) the engine had mercenary ships... at least when on a crusade I definitely remember recruiting mercenary ships to get to the Holy Land... so it should be possible - if it's reasonable or makes sense is up to the team ;)

[fomalhaut]

right but the logistics of that; "hey let me plant my huge army here and wait patiently until a ship comes by"
it never made sense to me in MTWII

[vartan]

right but the logistics of that; "hey let me plant my huge army here and wait patiently until a ship comes by"
it never made sense to me in MTWII
If we're talking frequented, busy ports that were points of launch for major campaigns a la crusades, then it's quite reasonable, if you can afford it (you're probably the king).

[fomalhaut]

is there a way to restrict the recruitment to just ports or that area? i could hire boats anywhere on the coast of MTWII.

[Ca Putt]

more sensible than beeing stuck on land with a huge army and plenty of wood until a city far away is captured. it sure would be less iritating when you'd have the option to "build" them over the construction menu. one could nerf the hireable ships to let them better represent this mix of on-spot crafted vessels and more reliable pirates.

[fomalhaut]

ok, that definitely makes more sense. i didn't consider that could just be a representation of them using resources around them, chiefly 60,000 bored soldiers and wood to create them.

[moonburn]

herm soldiers building boats right so how many will drown :?

[Ichon]

ok, that definitely makes more sense. i didn't consider that could just be a representation of them using resources around them, chiefly 60,000 bored soldiers and wood to create them.

Yeah but think of the turn length... months are going by. In that period a message couldn't be sent ordering a fleet? Also each ship has to represent more than a single boat. Could be anywhere from barges to bireme to a fleet of local fishing boats. MTW2 engine isn't sohpisticated enough to really deal with the logistics so its abstracted enough otherwise you get into Paradox style games where you have to plan the logistics ahead of the campaign which is realistic to an extent but is that something you want to do in MTW2?

[Julianus]

I'm not sure if this is possible or already suggested, but I'll be glad to see the "size effect" of an army simulated in some way. By this I mean a huge army is much more difficult and expensive to maintain than when it is separated into several smaller columns, and as its size increases, it becomes more cumbersome and marches slower. This will force you to disperse your forces and only concentrate them when preparing for a massive battle ahead, instead of always running around the map at the head of a full stack.

[TheLastDays]

This sounds good, although I doubt, that it's possible in the limits of the engine, to accurately simulate that...
What could be possible is attrition, it was a "feature" in crusaders armies, so maybe it could be implemented to simulate long marches without supply lines...

[moonburn]

herm julianus in mtw2 if you separate your armies 10/20% of them will rebel depending on your faction leader influence so spliting armies will be a dangerous game

[war is hell]

The one thing I would like to see in EB2 is the ability to establish new homelands for my people. Like say I'm playing Sweboz and want to recreate the cimbric migration, will it be possible to colonize other lands and recruit factional troops?

[fomalhaut]

i've seen this done manually (Arche to Britain of all people and places :P) so perhaps a script can do this as well? i've always felt limited in this regard, like im sure after 100 years under Roman Hegemony Iberia felt like a true part of the Empire? perhaps like a 50 turn migration type of thing like the nomads can do, after a certain amount of x population of x culture build x amount of cultural buildings?

[Foot]

i've always felt limited in this regard, like im sure after 100 years under Roman Hegemony Iberia felt like a true part of the Empire?

Well other than it took the Romans about 200 years to subdue the local inhabitants. And it certainly did feel like part of the empire, but that certainly doesn't mean you could recruit italians there.

Foot

[fomalhaut]

but the concept of citizen and being 'roman' extended beyond the italian peninsula by that time, correct?

[war is hell]

Well I was thinking more like transplanting Italians to Iberia rather than assimilating Iberians.

Like how long did it take for the Galatians to establish themselves in Galatia to the point where we are recruiting celts there at the EB start point? Same with greeks establishing themselves as far east as bactria.

[Foot]

but the concept of citizen and being 'roman' extended beyond the italian peninsula by that time, correct?

Hence Marian recruitment. Other factions did not have anything similar.



Like how long did it take for the Galatians to establish themselves in Galatia to the point where we are recruiting celts there at the EB start point? Same with greeks establishing themselves as far east as bactria.

The Galations were a migration. An entire population just moving from one place and settling down into another. Transplating italians to Iberia did happen in the form of colonies, but the percentage of italians was tiny compared to the native population. As has previously been previewed, colonies will exist in EBII, and will allow you to change recruitment.

Foot

[fomalhaut]

that's awesome, most people roleplay that anyway so it's nice to see it cemented via mechanics.

[geala]

@ Ca Putt: I don't want to start a discussion about units here, therefore I don't mentioned examples.



What does this mean anymore? History has room for more than one interpretation. That is why when 20 students turn in papers for a single prompt, and none of them answers the same way as any other, none of them fails for the simple fact that they did not achieve a single correct answer. EB has provided us with an interpretation of history that--and it is important to remember this--has not been constant, and has changed over time. I don't take it for granted because when entering in factional unit lists for EB Online I see name changes over and over again for units. Flexibility is a great trait in history.

Surely, I concur with what you said. We have sometimes so few informations that a good deal of speculation is mandatory, esp. for a game and its restrictions. I only had some problems in mind that are possibly caused by the early introduction of some of the Greek/Hellenistic units. E.G. to have peltasts with thoureoi shields and thoureophoroi is such a problem. EB2 should get rid of the peltasts and install thoureophoroi with javelins instead. And a thoureophoros should not have much armour, with armour it should be a thorakites. Or the padded armour of the Cretan archers. The only pictures of Hellenistic time Cretan archers show them without armour, and if armour is given to them because of gameplay reasons (which are important reasons) it should perhaps be one that is more common for the Greeks and at least shown in some ancient illustrations. Or the rather strange Akarnanian attack unit. Or the appearance of the chitones and the Roman caligae of many Greek units.

Small things like this. The possibility of M2:TW units to show more than one appearance will solve many problems and I think the team is aware of the problems. We had such discussions before, no need to warm it up. :beam:

[athanaric]

Or the padded armour of the Cretan archers. I'd rather see a source for the extreme missile range they have in EB I.



Or the rather strange Akarnanian attack unit.
Which unit are you referring to? Akarnania doesn't have a regional special unit in EB I as far as I'm aware of. Perhaps you mean Agrianian?

[Ca Putt]

ah ok those, yeah the EB team often chose the most armored variant thinkable. personally I could never actually befriend myself with the fact that EB-Peltasts are fairly heavy. and(like you) I'm sure through the variation possible within a unit they'll "fix" alot of these issues.

I was just curious on what you suggest. no need to discuss

[TheLastDays]

Well I never experienced the EB Peltasts as extremely heavy... there is definitely an increase in "heaviness" going from peltastai to thoureophoroi to thorakitai

[geala]

I'd rather see a source for the extreme missile range they have in EB I.

I only know one for the contrary, I would also like to have a source cause I'm especially interested in Cretan archers. On the other hand, you can change it very easily yourself. I'm too dumb to create a new sprite/texture however, I can perhaps alter unit info pictures, but not more.



Which unit are you referring to? Akarnania doesn't have a regional special unit in EB I as far as I'm aware of. Perhaps you mean Agrianian?

Exactly. Thank you for the correction. I should start a new campaign and don't trust my bad memory. :embarassed:




Well I never experienced the EB Peltasts as extremely heavy... there is definitely an increase in "heaviness" going from peltastai to thoureophoroi to thorakitai

It is really ok for game reasons, a steady development. But I think the "peltasts" of the 3rd c BC were thoureophoroi (which means nothing more than bearer of a thureos), mostly without armour and with more than two, but lighter javelins. They were often named peltastes which sometimes seemed to become a synonym for soldiers outside the phalanx (or even professional soldiers/mercenaries). I never recruit EB thoureophoroi because there is no real historical background for such a Roman style soldier with a javelin-before-attack setting. And in the game the peltastes can more or less do the same as the thoureophoroi, shielding the flanks of the phalanx. The EB thoureophoroi are in fact thorakitai (user of thorakes because they have a linen or leather thorax) and I don't see the sense in the distinction. Better to combine peltastes and thoureophoroi to one unit and spare a slot.

[moonburn]

there´s an hyrkanian unit when playing as the seulecids around the caspian sea

for the thureporoi and peltastai all i can say is that throkitai are my favourite unit in the game i even stoped playing makedonians because they lack those heavy batle line holders so we can imagine a kind of transition from peltastai (wich actually means pelt carrier and a pelt is a small shield not the thureos they wear) to thureporoi and eventually to thorokitai

[fomalhaut]

don't forget that peltast eventually just became a blanket term for a mercenary or non phalanx light infantry...


also there is one thing i REALLY wanna see in EBII, Agryaspides who are old!. It is stated in their description but not in their render that the silver shields were old veterans, and the silver shields who betrayed eumenes were in their 60's. with the new tools available in MTWII i hope to see old grizzled representations of these feared pikemen

[Constantius III]

also there is one thing i REALLY wanna see in EBII, Agryaspides who are old!. It is stated in their description but not in their render that the silver shields were old veterans, and the silver shields who betrayed eumenes were in their 60's. with the new tools available in MTWII i hope to see old grizzled representations of these feared pikemen
Yeah, but those were the "original" silver shields, all of whom had died by 272. I'm pretty sure that the units of silver shields that were created by later rulers weren't comprised purely of sexagenarian veterans, since their sexagenarian veterans wouldn't have served with Alexander.

[fomalhaut]

but wouldn't the tradition, and practical purposes remain, that the silver shields be composed of the oldest and best veterans who seemingly have nothing better to do than be elite pikemen? I know the unit was reformed after the originals were essentially sent to die to remove them politically, but still..

[stratigos vasilios]

Yeah this isn't something I'd like fixed (and probably a little off topic), but I wouldn't mind seeing unique individual ancillaries associated with each city. Similar to the ancillaries given in DLV, eg. Govenor of Roma +3 management etc, Govenor of Baktra +1 Command + 2 Influence etc. This would be very low priority though, could possibly be an idea for a sub mod too.

[TheLastDays]

Well there are, for the Romani St least, the "Provincial Governor"-ancillaries...

[war is hell]

One thing I'd like to see fixed is the A.I. recruitment patterns. Why do the Romans field stack after stack of foreign mercenaries? They're not Carthage. I can only annihilate so many of them before it becomes obnoxious. The factional troops they do field usually end up wondering around aimlessly in small groups that are easy to pick off. That applies to most factions. Getting the A.I. to simply field real armies would go a long way to making the EB/TW experience more enjoyable. If there was one thing I could change about RTW it would be that. Sorta related but my favorite fights are with the roving defenders, simply because it's a formidable opponent but not in an annoying way.