View Full Version : Fans suggestion thread for future releases
anubis88
05-02-2015, 16:12
Hi guys,
as some of you might know, i've been enrolled as the EB team's liaison (secretary sounds girly :S), and as you might assume my work will basically be to be a link between the fans and the EB developers; one way i'd like to achieve this, is to open this suggestion thread, where fans can give their suggestion on improving the mod.
So feel free to give your suggestions in this thread; i'll be happy to read through them and forward them to the team members responsible for that part of the game; while these won't be in the next release, good ones will have a good chance of being implemented in the future, if of course we will have the manpower and time to actually make them work. Unfortunately sometimes an idea can be really good, but it would take too much time for too small results.
Ok, so please post your suggestions and ideas in this thread;
Regards,
Anubis
Adalingum
05-02-2015, 19:27
Hi guys,
as some of you might know, i've been enrolled as the EB team's liaison (secretary sounds girly :S), and as you might assume my work will basically be to be a link between the fans and the EB developers; one way i'd like to achieve this, is to open this suggestion thread, where fans can give their suggestion on improving the mod.
So feel free to give your suggestions in this thread; i'll be happy to read through them and forward them to the team members responsible for that part of the game; while these won't be in the next release, good ones will have a good chance of being implemented in the future, if of course we will have the manpower and time to actually make them work. Unfortunately sometimes an idea can be really good, but it would take too much time for too small results.
Ok, so please post your suggestions and ideas in this thread;
Regards,
Anubis
Thanks for putting up this thread, please allow me to begin my 'nagging' right away. :p
*Perhaps this thread could be stickied?
*Perhaps a similar thread could be opened over at the TWC?
*I'm not sure if it's realistic (or even possible), but I'd like to suggest giving cavalry armed with lances and swords (or axes, maces etc.) an animation that allows them to attack other units in front of them once they have engaged said unit with their melee weapons. This because they're currently at a huge disadvantage against cavalry armed with spears, since those can attack an opponent directly in front of them, whereas the sword-armed cavalry can't strike back, leading to such situations as the early Roman equites beating the much heavier Carthiginian noble cavalry in a protracted melee.
*Creating the government option of an allied (and closely allied) monarchy, adding to the options of the allied democracy and oligarchy. This to demonstrate for example the allied/client kingdom the Romans backed in Thrace in the late first century B.C. / early first century A.D. If such an option is already available in the game and I've simply missed it, I hereby apologize.
Again, thanks for putting this up and I hope we get to see some interesting ideas posted here in the near future. :)
Stickied.
And what's girly about the term "Secretary?". e.g. Secretery General of the xxxx Party.
anubis88
05-02-2015, 23:01
Adalingum
See, those are all relevant ideas that i'll definetly talk to the guys about. I will open a thread on TWC tommorow; i'm at a different computer and i don't remember the login :D.
Brennus
Secretary of defence might work too :D But yeah i don't care what i'm called. As long as it's not expected of me to have an affair with my boss :D
Just something small
If you receive a colonization point (for building a polis or colonization building) you get a message that you can build a polis or colonization building but if you can not build one you get that message every turn which is very annoying. It would be great if this could be changed to a single message when you earn the colonization point.
Keep up the good work
Hi people! I have a suggestion and a request,
First of all, I don't know if this will be achievable at all: Would it be possible to have an emergent message, just like that one from "faction announcements", that informs the player of earning a colony point, or some other mechanic like that? I find annoying that this message from the advisor do not appear for some factions, as the A.S.
Relating to the culture conversion bonus, I've observed that the message in the building description (1% culture conversion bonus) only appears in winter, is this intentional? Can you offer some kind of guide to fully understand those strange mechanics? I understand that clerics are inaccurate, but some light over this matter would be great. My reference buildings are: "KATOIKIAI LAON" and "PHROURIOI LAON".
EDIT: Oh, and other thing I have noticed, the first TIER of farming, brings "Forest Tribal Culture" conversion bonus, is this intentional?
Sorry if I'm not clear with my message, if something is wrong I'll do my best to explain what I meant, thanks team!
15301
It's a screenshot to show what I meant in my last edit
I think that cultural conversion is due to Galatia belonging to the Aruernoi...
Iirc neighbouring provinces are part of the equation...
But then appear two more questions, Aruernoi in Galatia are a relatively recent event, and they are European Tribal States, if I'm right.
Thanks anyway
Will point it out to coders and scripters, they definitely know more on this than me :)
Maybe the Aruernoi built something that increases Forest Tribalism, or they aren't the cause at all XD
My suggestion is actually different from others:
The EB team has made recently a very good move of hiring a secretery, it will definitely make the contact with fans easier. But I believe there is another position that should be created and manned and this is:
A RECRUITER - a person (or best 2 or 3 persons) that will post from time to time on every: 1. mod-related, 2. history-related 3. total-war related 4. skinning and modelling-related 5. histrorical paintings-related website. I mean like really from time to time which means regulary. I believe that only in this way enough volunteers may be found to still polish this beautiful mod. Maybe actions like this are already undertaken by the team, I do not know, but regular search on numerous Internet forums and websites just have to end with finding of dedicated modders. Not all people visit org and tw. Maybe there are people out there who would make a great contribution but do not even know yet that the EB exists? Maybe the posts that have already been posted are too old for people to notice? In other words it would be great if EB team team created a small unit just for recruting purposes and let them work for 3 or 4 months - I believe the results would be great
joshmahurin
05-07-2015, 19:21
If you can suggest such sites I believe this is already one of Anubis' tasks. The problem is finding relevant sites.
anubis88
05-07-2015, 21:06
If you can suggest such sites I believe this is already one of Anubis' tasks. The problem is finding relevant sites.
Precisely. It's very hard to find free help. If you'd pay them, you'd get 1000 people in day :D. But that's something the community can also help on its own; if you know of any such sites, please feel free to post them here, and i'll make an official EB request for help :)
Belisarius II
05-08-2015, 06:23
One suggestion I have for a future update is possibly to make the colors of the factions' territory on the minimap darker or more saturated. Many of the factions like the Seleucids have light colors and are difficult to differentiate from rebel territories on the minimap and sometimes from each other.
i started to notice this during my latest KH campain.
many ai missile units keep shooting their missiles when engaged in melee combat even against other units than the one thy are currently in melee combat with. This mostly end u with heavy cassulties for the receiving unit.
this wouldn't bother me if my own units could do this to but it seems only the ai can
maybe something to look into?
I will try to search for such sites then! IT will be difficult for me as I work 12 hours a Day but still I will do what I van. I believe more people should be involved in this. Do you mind if I open another thread for this on tw ?
QuintusSertorius
05-08-2015, 12:09
One suggestion I have for a future update is possibly to make the colors of the factions' territory on the minimap darker or more saturated. Many of the factions like the Seleucids have light colors and are difficult to differentiate from rebel territories on the minimap and sometimes from each other.
This is something I've raised already, white in particular is a bad colour to use.
*same post as on TWC
Many personal sugestions have already been posted or they are long term objectives so not going to insist on those.
Hoever I wonder if there are possible the folowing tweakings of the strategy map UI that will improve a bit the control the player has it over its expansion/progress:
Radar Map
-adding better contrasting colour shades between some factions (ex Epeiros-Macedon)or/and
-adding subtle region borders
Faction Ranking Scroll
-adding better contrasting colour shades between factions chart lines or/and
-make the lines a bit thiker so the colour be more visible (I know it can get crowded that why I said "a bit")
-faction symbols are not highlighted enough/equally when selected so you cant easily tell which are the ones displayed on the chart and which are not (combined with the colour problem this is a bit distressfull)
https://7lapnq.dm2303.livefilestore.com/y2pzTJ__l-7_eJLd8q0p594HeStADPaumS5YaGpftMGD5aABAzq-u30HlWLCNBzhmbJp1GZZBS-S1HvUdi2FAw13KmyW_Md9AuACEPGmHClm0qW5kJwUKKAqmIbsZqNHKMrQko3JGNqcXoT2Ft_tTVDzcGkt4C3-dB1HlLndfr76Pk/Faction%20rankings.png?psid=1
joshmahurin
05-14-2015, 23:05
i started to notice this during my latest KH campain.
many ai missile units keep shooting their missiles when engaged in melee combat even against other units than the one thy are currently in melee combat with. This mostly end u with heavy cassulties for the receiving unit.
this wouldn't bother me if my own units could do this to but it seems only the ai can
maybe something to look into?
This would be something to report in the bug threads
joshmahurin
05-14-2015, 23:06
*same post as on TWC
Many personal sugestions have already been posted or they are long term objectives so not going to insist on those.
Hoever I wonder if there are possible the folowing tweakings of the strategy map UI that will improve a bit the control the player has it over its expansion/progress:
Radar Map
-adding better contrasting colour shades between some factions (ex Epeiros-Macedon)or/and
-adding subtle region borders
Faction Ranking Scroll
-adding better contrasting colour shades between factions chart lines or/and
-make the lines a bit thiker so the colour be more visible (I know it can get crowded that why I said "a bit")
-faction symbols are not highlighted enough/equally when selected so you cant easily tell which are the ones displayed on the chart and which are not (combined with the colour problem this is a bit distressfull)
https://7lapnq.dm2303.livefilestore.com/y2pzTJ__l-7_eJLd8q0p594HeStADPaumS5YaGpftMGD5aABAzq-u30HlWLCNBzhmbJp1GZZBS-S1HvUdi2FAw13KmyW_Md9AuACEPGmHClm0qW5kJwUKKAqmIbsZqNHKMrQko3JGNqcXoT2Ft_tTVDzcGkt4C3-dB1HlLndfr76Pk/Faction%20rankings.png?psid=1
We are actually talking about changing faction colors, though mostly just talking. I believe AS and Ptolemaioi as well as the rebel color will be changed in the future but others we are still trying to decide what would make sense, with a bias towards colors that actually reflect some aspect of that faction. Thus if you have any suggestions feel free to advise.
For attuned governor... With romans when I send my guy back to Rome for elections he loses this trait then gets it back only to lose it again when he goes back for elections, ant chance you could change the switch to lose it to two turns outside the city? Then he could go back for elections and come back the next season and not lose his governor abilities?
@josh mahurin Where can I find the faction color codes that are displayed on the radar map?
joshmahurin
05-18-2015, 20:07
QuintusSertorius would know better than me I believe :P
QuintusSertorius
05-18-2015, 20:17
They're all in the data\descr_sm_factions.txt
Adalingum
05-20-2015, 20:59
Something I thought of since the Jewish spearmen have recently been previewed: is there a chance we could see a Maccabean or Judean revolt script in future releases? I'm not too familiar with modding Total War games, but here's what I thought of:
You could perhaps do something like create a script that increases unrest in the province Judea is included in (don't remember exactly which one it is atm) for certain levels of the 'Hellenistic Polities' 'religion' for as long as the Second Temple remains standing as a unique building, to simulate the tensions between hellenizing and traditional Jews at the time, with several rebel units spawning should public order drop below a certain threshold. Whereas destroying the temple could trigger another scripted revolt of several units, both to deny the player an easy way out the situation and to simulate that likely a lot of people would be pissed off if their most sacred site would just be desecrated like that. Finally the script could perhaps keep track of a counter which documents for how long it has been active, with tensions dropping and public order increasing once more after a few decades have passed, to reward the player for his/her provincial management and to simulate that a modus vivendi has been found between the hellenised and traditional factions. Something similar could possibly be implimented for the Roman faction (through Western Mediterranean Polities and the requirement of it firing only for the Romans), though the Roman-Jewish wars were largely outside of EB II's time-frame IIRC.
I'm not entirely sure how realistic or historical this idea would be or even if it's possible to script something like this. Also, my apologies if something similar is already (planned to be) accounted for in EB II. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
P.S. I used the term 'Judea' for the area because I'd like to avoid the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict in this matter. Please don't think I'm suggesting this out of pro-Israeli sentiments or something, I just wanted to propose an idea which I think would be beneficial to the historical feel and gameplay of EB II (managing a real, divided population, rather than simple numbers).
anubis88
05-20-2015, 21:19
Something I thought of since the Jewish spearmen have recently been previewed: is there a chance we could see a Maccabean or Judean revolt script in future releases? I'm not too familiar with modding Total War games, but here's what I thought of:
You could perhaps do something like create a script that increases unrest in the province Judea is included in (don't remember exactly which one it is atm) for certain levels of the 'Hellenistic Polities' 'religion' for as long as the Second Temple remains standing as a unique building, to simulate the tensions between hellenizing and traditional Jews at the time, with several rebel units spawning should public order drop below a certain threshold. Whereas destroying the temple could trigger another scripted revolt of several units, both to deny the player an easy way out the situation and to simulate that likely a lot of people would be pissed off if their most sacred site would just be desecrated like that. Finally the script could perhaps keep track of a counter which documents for how long it has been active, with tensions dropping and public order increasing once more after a few decades have passed, to reward the player for his/her provincial management and to simulate that a modus vivendi has been found between the hellenised and traditional factions. Something similar could possibly be implimented for the Roman faction (through Western Mediterranean Polities and the requirement of it firing only for the Romans), though the Roman-Jewish wars were largely outside of EB II's time-frame IIRC.
I'm not entirely sure how realistic or historical this idea would be or even if it's possible to script something like this. Also, my apologies if something similar is already (planned to be) accounted for in EB II. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
P.S. I used the term 'Judea' for the area because I'd like to avoid the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict in this matter. Please don't think I'm suggesting this out of pro-Israeli sentiments or something, I just wanted to propose an idea which I think would be beneficial to the historical feel and gameplay of EB II (managing a real, divided population, rather than simple numbers).
Problem with this is that it would single out this rebelion, which was just one of many. You could argue almost every part of the map had seen a rebelion in our timeframe; the maccabean revolt was just one of them. Rebellions were prone everywhere, not just in judaea. Sure it was more drastic when religions were changed, but again this didn't just happen there.
Adalingum
05-20-2015, 21:25
Problem with this is that it would single out this rebelion, which was just one of many. You could argue almost every part of the map had seen a rebelion in our timeframe; the maccabean revolt was just one of them. Rebellions were prone everywhere, not just in judaea. Sure it was more drastic when religions were changed, but again this didn't just happen there.
Fair enough, it was just a suggestion. That said, I remember something being posted or mentioned about an 'Arvernian Revolt' event way way back. Wouldn't that be equally in violation of your argument above?
Just my thoughts on this: the problem there is that rebel units spawning (therefore acting against the polity in power) makes little sense. Those tensions resulted in killings among the Jewish communities and not against Hellenistic citizens, or even coordinated actions against the power in place...
The Maccabean Revolt happened because the Hellenising faction thought held enough power to implement reforms and acting as local representatives informed the Seleukid Basileus that these could/should be enacted...
Even when this revolt took place, again iirc, most of the violence was directed at other Jews, in order to terrorise them into not siding with the Seleukidai, while of course what forces were mustered fought the armies sent to end the rebellion...
However this resulted from a very specific combination of events, overall in the general religious freedom of the Hellenistic period, especially under the Seleukidai, also keeping in mind as I said that those tensions were of an internal factional nature, I think that script wouldn't be as accurate...
Already the destruction of temples cause the loss of public happiness, making a unique building solely in Ioudaia would be rather arbitrary (any community would revolt whenever sacred grounds would be violated and temples destroyed). I suppose that considering the Zeus temple in Syria kai Phoinike as the temple to Zeus Ouranios already works along those lines...
Then of course, a sub-mod, or scripts for historical revolts could be definitely a possibility. Unfortunately lacking slots for emerging factions, some of these would just be Eleutheroi armies running around and taking at best one settlement...
joshmahurin
05-20-2015, 21:39
Fair enough, it was just a suggestion. That said, I remember something being posted or mentioned about an 'Arvernian Revolt' event way way back. Wouldn't that be equally in violation of your argument above?
If you are referring to the revolts of Celtic tribes in Northern Italy then I would say they make far more sense because they are involving two separate defined factions, the Roman aggressors and the defending Arverni/Boii/Aedui, so while they are starting as rebel settlements the scripted event gives an opportunity for them to be annexed by a specific faction. We don't have a Jewish faction for Judea to revolt to, even if Arjos' well explained point wasn't the case. So historically and from a game play perspective it makes less sense. Not to say we couldn't eventually figure out something to simulate this but it is a low low priority if you understand. Your suggestion is appreciated for sure.
Adalingum
05-20-2015, 21:58
Just my thoughts on this: the problem there is that rebel units spawning (therefore acting against the polity in power) makes little sense. Those tensions resulted in killings among the Jewish communities and not against Hellenistic citizens, or even coordinated actions against the power in place...
The Maccabean Revolt happened because the Hellenising faction thought held enough power to implement reforms and acting as local representatives informed the Seleukid Basileus that these could/should be enacted...
Even when this revolt took place, again iirc, most of the violence was directed at other Jews, in order to terrorise them into not siding with the Seleukidai, while of course what forces were mustered fought the armies sent to end the rebellion...
However this resulted from a very specific combination of events, overall in the general religious freedom of the Hellenistic period, especially under the Seleukidai, also keeping in mind as I said that those tensions were of an internal factional nature, I think that script wouldn't be as accurate...
Already the destruction of temples cause the loss of public happiness, making a unique building solely in Ioudaia would be rather arbitrary (any community would revolt whenever sacred grounds would be violated and temples destroyed). I suppose that considering the Zeus temple in Syria kai Phoinike as the temple to Zeus Ouranios already works along those lines...
Then of course, a sub-mod, or scripts for historical revolts could be definitely a possibility. Unfortunately lacking slots for emerging factions, some of these would just be Eleutheroi armies running around and taking at best one settlement...
I remember there being a unique building for the Second Temple, which is was I was referring to. Could be something that was in EB I that didn't get carried over in EB II though. Anyway, thanks for your explanation, I now understand why my suggestion wasn't as great as I made it out to be.
If you are referring to the revolts of Celtic tribes in Northern Italy then I would say they make far more sense because they are involving two separate defined factions, the Roman aggressors and the defending Arverni/Boii/Aedui, so while they are starting as rebel settlements the scripted event gives an opportunity for them to be annexed by a specific faction. We don't have a Jewish faction for Judea to revolt to, even if Arjos' well explained point wasn't the case. So historically and from a game play perspective it makes less sense. Not to say we couldn't eventually figure out something to simulate this but it is a low low priority if you understand. Your suggestion is appreciated for sure.
I was referring to a term that was used on these forums a few months or even years ago. I'm not sure what it referred to, so it might indeed be what you described. And yes I understand it's low priority, but I thought I might suggest it anyway.
Anyway, I rest my case. You guys have made your point abundantly clear. Thanks for that. I hope you didn't mind my ramblings.
joshmahurin
05-20-2015, 23:22
No not at all and I wanted to point out that I appreciate your suggestion and it may end up influencing something eventually just yeah it isn't anything we could put priority on currently. Please keep suggesting anything you can think of :)
Any chance we see recruitable generals like eb1 had? Seems like it would be a way for computer to have an officer in charge of armies and also makes it more enjoyable having something that really seems like a puppet leader
anubis88
05-21-2015, 22:08
Any chance we see recruitable generals like eb1 had? Seems like it would be a way for computer to have an officer in charge of armies and also makes it more enjoyable having something that really seems like a puppet leader
Thing is there's a new concept for bodyguards in EB; if you look closely, they are almost free. The idea is to give the small factions a better chance by them having cheap elite units.
I think it's tied to the fact that the recruitable generals would also be very cheap, and spamming them could become a huge issue. Someone correct me if i'm wrong :D
Thing is there's a new concept for bodyguards in EB; if you look closely, they are almost free. The idea is to give the small factions a better chance by them having cheap elite units.
I think it's tied to the fact that the recruitable generals would also be very cheap, and spamming them could become a huge issue. Someone correct me if i'm wrong :D
Seems like you could just set a hard cap like you do now with spies so you could only have like 1 or 2 per settlement
QuintusSertorius
05-22-2015, 09:06
Seems like you could just set a hard cap like you do now with spies so you could only have like 1 or 2 per settlement
If they were going to be available anywhere, it would be in Allied Governments, not factional ones, I'd say.
recruitable generals would be great. A very low repletish rate and hard cap would prevent any spamming.
maybe make the amount (hard cap) dependant on the amount of allied gov you have. So if you have a lot of allies you also get a few allied generals to lead their armies (or go rebel with them :p)
Adalingum
06-13-2015, 23:04
So, another thing I've been thinking about: the workings of the predecessor government buildings (regional pacification).
First off, it's working is inconsistent: the Roman version, for example, provides a 10% law bonus, a minus 20% happiness penalty and a third effect I can't think of atm (I believe an agricultural effect), whereas in most other factions (perhaps even all others) it only provides a happiness penalty (of 15%, if I'm not mistaken).
I don't know if the Romans were more effective in pacifying a region militarily than others, but to me this seems like an unfair advantage or at least a case of inconsistency. This is, however, not the main point of my suggestion.
Since regional pacification only provides a negative stat in most cases and money is usually tight in the early stages of an EB campaign (meaning more advanced forms of government are at times unavailable for some time, I tend to hold off on setting up regional pacification until I've got the funds immediately start building the next government building. In practice, this can mean keeping the region in what is effectively a state of lawlessness for what can amount to several years. Not very realistic imo, which is why I suggest the following changes to the current system:
1 For the sake of consistency I propose adding a minor law bonus (in the vein of the Roman one) to at least the regional pacification buildings of the 'civilized' factions, if not to those of all factions. In my mind at least, 'regional pacification' represents the forceful restoration of (at least the semblance of) civil order amongst a resentful and unhappy population (one can imagine soldiers patrolling the streets at night, their movements followed by civilians with anger and hate in their eyes...) Thus, even though the natives are still very much upset, order has been restored after the chaos that follows a governmental breakdown and military conquest. This leads me nicely to my second point...
2 In my previous remark, I spoke of 'the chaos that follows a governmental breakdown and military conquest'. The issue I see here is that, in my opinion, EB II doesn't actually represent this situation in its current state. As noted before, setting up regional pacification is actually worse in terms of public order compared to leaving the region in a state of governmental limbo (leading to issue I noted above). Therefore, I propose the creation of a building that represents a state of civil chaos. This building could be tied to script that checks whether there is a government building in a settlement and if there isn't, spawns one of these buildings in said settlement (also destroying it if a goverment has been built). Effects could include a law and happiness penalty or even a minor population growth penalty (to represent people fleeing, migrating or moving away) or a taxation penalty (such as can be found in RS II, where it represents the maintenance cost of, for example, roads) to represent that effective collection of tribute or taxation isn't possible in such situation. I believe this would be a good incentive for the player to begin restoring order to a province either by pacifying it or handing over power to the local elites.
So, I hope this has been enough to present my idea. Once again, I'm interested to see what you people think about it (perhaps my view of what things follow after a military conquest is wholly inaccurate). Please do not think this is a critique or meant to be condescending towards the mod.
Also, please ignore any spelling and grammar mistakes I likely made.
A RECRUITER - a person (or best 2 or 3 persons) that will post from time to time on every: 1. mod-related, 2. history-related 3. total-war rel
Have you guys ever thought about outsourcing some work to students that can be used for both their project/thesis and EB?
Here some examples to clarify my idea:
- A history student does research for some EB related stuff and publishes the results in a seminar thesis
- A designer creates 3D models for a university project that can be used in EB
They would be more inclined to do the work since they have to do papers/projects for their degree anyway.
So the recruiters duties could include getting students to propose stuff like that to their professors or even better, getting professors to put that kind of work on their "list of possible topics/projects".
Would that even be possible/make sense or is the idea completely stupid?
Playing as the Gandharans was really easy until i refused to submit to authority then Mauryans came! The capture of cities was really easy as all the rebel army normally in Settlement was outside roaming the province so i went around (they did surpirse me sometimes and i lost a general) and captured the Cities as there was only 1 unit a general defending most of the Settlements are like that it's a great idea but didnt work as the army outside wouldnt ever attack the settlement just wait outside?
Yeah recruitable General good idea then schools would be even more useful
Not_a_Strategist_yet
07-22-2015, 08:33
Would it be possible to exploit the medieval 2 totals war jihad mechanic to add the possibility of a coalition of states with similar culture against an enemy province for those regions something like that used to happen at some point in history?
If it can be made really hard to achieve and wants good reputation with other factions for them to join it could be a nice thing. And it's 1 province so won't end up defeating everything with a decent cooldown.
Like let's say someone has a Greek power and has good relations with other Greeks so when the Romans invade he calls for a counter-attack of a coalition of city states. But if they are infighting the chance is very slim for that.
Just adding the idea, but I'm not a historian so I don't know if it would really fit in.
I have a couple of suggestions: :)
1) Is it possible to link Mercenary recruitment more closely to factions or restrict the replenishment levels more selectively so that for example KH can't simply recruit Mercenary Phalangitai to meets its shortfall in that area? IIRC there was mention in the Hellenic reform thread of a Hellenic faction only being able to recruit 2000 phalangites at some point. ties. With a modicum of money however, the player can simply top up his faction limits with the inexhaustible supply of fairly easily replaced mercenary equivalents. Or maybe just make them a lot more expensive to recruit/maintain?
2) Is it possible (or desirable?) to have each faction capital capable of retraining but not recruiting all/most of the initial starting army. For example the Macedonians start with a nice unit of Hetairoi which is usually ground down in a few battles. It is then several decades before Macedonia can build up its cities/associated buildings to recruit or retrain them, which leaves much of the early-middle part of the game bereft of these colourful units.
Thoughts?
Regards
Vermin
.I also hope that you can introduce one important things to the military.The logistics.If your army are too far away from your basis.It should run out of food.There should be deserters and lower morale.The cost outside the country should be far higher inside it.I think this will help balance the nomad and permanent faction
anubis88
10-12-2015, 15:45
Hi,
you already get penalties when you leave your territory; unit attrition is not possible in the mtw engine though
If that is not possible.Could you lower the training cost and the upkeep of the nomadic faction.A nomadic leader did not need to pay to train his warrior.He just sumon them and share with them the trophy when he win a war.There should be more reble in nomadic region.They will represent other nomadic tribe oppose the nomadic faction .They will attack nomadic faction as well as any other invader..But if you are powerful enough you can buy them out as your mercenary.
QuintusSertorius
10-13-2015, 08:47
If that is not possible.Could you lower the training cost and the upkeep of the nomadic faction.A nomadic leader did not need to pay to train his warrior.He just sumon them and share with them the trophy when he win a war.There should be more reble in nomadic region.They will represent other nomadic tribe oppose the nomadic faction .They will attack nomadic faction as well as any other invader..But if you are powerful enough you can buy them out as your mercenary.
No, all unit costs and upkeep are based upon the unit's status, equipment, training and size. There is no way to distinguish what faction has recruited a unit, meaning if nomadic units are cheaper then they are so for everyone. In any case, they generally are cheaper because they have less armour and are often levy or semi-professional.
I am hoping this is the right place to put this (if not please advise me)
Two criticisms
OK – hoping that you guys can take some heartfelt criticism without going all defensive on me:
I really like EB II, but I have two beefs with it that prevent me from playing it.
Beef 1:
The latest versions – I will not install EB II 2.1b simply because you make the already too complex installation much worse. First I have to move my old installation, then download the 2.1 patch and install it, then the 2.1b patch and install that, all the time checking that through very slow loads that everything is going right! – Give me a break, guys, I retired from programming years ago, and I don't want to take it up again just to get a game to run. I would stick to EB II until you guys produce a unified version with an installer that can figure out which directories it wants to put things into. At least , I would play EB II, if not for the following major annoyance:
Beef 2:
No Swapping of Ancillaries
Yes, I have read the discussions, and the reasons that at least one of your developers gave for this choice. I am sorry but I can no longer find that thread, so I hope he forgives me if I miss-quote his reasoning here.
Basically, he said that you don't allow the Swapping of Ancillaries because it is not realistic. In real life, if you get a “Drunken Uncle,” or a “Bad Dog,” or whatever, you are stuck with him – you can't just pass him on to someone else.
The person who wrote that sounds like a really nice person, but he must live in a family quite different from mine, or those that I have experienced. If he has never had to pack of a Slubbergudgeon Uncle to go live with some distant cousins that he did not like very much anyway, then he is a better person than the members of my family, and other families I am acquainted with. If he has never unloaded a bad dog on an unsuspecting sucker, then he is a good and honest fellow, but I must confess that I am not so good, and have done this very thing. Heh! – I am Celtic, dog trading is in my blood!
As for other types of Ancillaries – slaves, servants, scribes, military and political assistants and so on – there is a fine tradition of trading these people from ancient times right on to present.
In Roman times, there was active trading in slaves. If your wife got furious about a slave who had become an Embarrassing Mistress, perhaps you could manage to placate your wife by trading her for a good cook. In the complex political/social interactions of Roman households, a good cook could advance your status and career. So could a good scribe or political adviser, and there was active trading in and competition for such servants. So much so, that remarkable were the instances where a prominent Roman managed to keep a good servant for life, perhaps only manumitting them by death will – such as in the case of, say, Cicero and Tiro.
As for military assistants, tribunes and the like, was not the cursus honorum a complex social convention that designed specifically to ensure the regular swapping around of such ancillaries?
The active trading and swapping of slaves, and later servants, was a tradition that was carried on well into modern times. If you read the stories of Jeeves and Wooster by PG Wodehouse, you will find many of the plots revolve around the trading, or attempted poaching, of some favored cook or maid or manservant. These are humorous tales, but they reflect the reality that there was active competition for good servants in feudal households.
I do know that Vanilla Med TW (unlike Rome TW) does not allow the swapping of ancillaries. I regretted this change, because I thought the careful strategic swapping of these servants was a fun and valuable part of the game. So the first thing I did with Med TW was unpack and edit the export_descr_ancillaries.txt to allow the swapping of all ancillaries (and make the changes in other files that this change requires)
With some work and some jiggery-pokerry, I have finally managed to get the same edits done on the export_descr_ancillaries.txt file of EB II. So now I CAN swap around ancillaries, without some irate Roman yelling in Latin at me. “Non Possibli” indeed! I guess it damned-well is possibli if you are determined enough!
However, I stand by all my other statements and arguments. Ancillary swapping should be allowed in EB II, so that a player does not have to go through all the jiggery-pockery to get it to work. Perhaps, it could be offered as an option (although I fear further complicating an installation process already too complex).
And if you ever fix the installation procedure, I might get on to version 2.1x (although, more likely, I would wait for a debugged and tried version 3.0, if you ever get round to making such a thing.
I do think that the making of EB II is an incredible achievement, one that you should all be proud off. I am sorry that this beef annoys me enough that it makes the game unplayable to me.
With great respect,
Cruin MacGriogair.
Just one other thing. I have not tried EB II in terms of the effectiveness of slingers yet, but if it is like the original EB, then I have a tiny wee Beef with that too.
As a slinger and an archer, I can assure you that sling bullets (at least over medium ranges) are in no way as penetrating as arrows. There is also a lot of good research available on the web about arrow penetration, it is not hard to find. Just because one Roman historian said that slingers were mowing down armored men, it does not make it true. If you doubt me, go get a sling and try it. Sling bullets can do some damage, but arrows do much more, and that is before we even look at bodkin arrow points.
The advantage of slings over bows is cost (they are much cheaper) and ammo (you can carry many more bullets than arrows, and if you run out, you can always use stones).
Regards,
Cruin MacGriogair.
QuintusSertorius
01-02-2016, 18:24
Ancillary-swapping for most (but not all, there are a handful you can't get rid of) was something I implemented in the test builds ages ago. It's in 2.1 and 2.1b.
Well good, -- see there I go, always a couple of versions behind the times, suggesting changes that have already been implemented in the latest version -- well, good for you!
I also have managed to play for a while now, and the slingers do not seem to overpowering here (they were just way over the top in EB I).
I do have another question/suggestion though:
In the description for a Free State, it says that you get 3 upkeep-free units. But it does not say which units! (The longer description suggests that locally-raised troops are only for local defense, and I think that is a neat idea, but none of the local troops seem to be upkeep-free). You should mention which troops are meant (which are they, by the way?)
If this is another thing you have implemented already in Version 2.1b I will laugh. You are like Microsoft, always trying to urge me along to the latest version!
le durachain
Cruin.
QuintusSertorius
01-09-2016, 03:10
What you get depends on where you build it, and the building browser and indeed description of the building should tell you when you look at it what's available in any particular place. It'll be a list of unit names.
A few other EB II bugs
What you get depends on where you build it, and the building browser and indeed description of the building should tell you when you look at it what's available in any particular place. It'll be a list of unit names.
Hmmm....?
This confused me, so I went back and looked.
Lets take, for example, Aleria, a Free City (actually a town) or we could take Caralis, which is the same:
The description lists the following units as available:
Persian Archers
Eastern Axemen
Eastern Medium Cavalry
Libyan Infantry *
Libby-Phonician Hoplites *
Libby-Phonician Cavalry *
Hellenic Levy Hoplites
Hellenistic Medium Cavalry (is there, btw, a difference “Hellenic” and “Hellenistic”?)
* The ones with the * are the only ones actually available in the recruitment roles, I am assuming because the town is only a town yet.
I had tried, unluckily, Libyan Infantry, and Libby-Phonician Cavalry before I left you my last note, and had not seen any “upkeep free” on mousing over them.
After you replied, I went back and tried the last unit availiable to me, Libby-Phonician Hoplites, and they do come upkeep free.
As a scot-pict I love to get upkeep-free units.
As a scot-pict I hate having to buy other units just to find out which ones are free.
If you want to avoid annoying scot-picts (and believe me, you do) you should mention in the descriptions which units are upkeep-free.
A couple of more small bugs – which you have probable fixed by ver 2.1b, but just in case not, I will list them here for you:
Bug 1
Almost all the “coming of age” family members have the same attributes: sharp/uncharismatic/languorous and selfish/pessimistic. This is despite having fathers that were sharp/charismatic/vigorous.The few exceptions (I think) were worse, being dull/uncharismatic/languorous
This would make it it hard to train up good fighting generals, but it gets worse, see Bug 2, below.
Bug 2
When a general wins a fight, he gets the a good-general stat, but does not get a general star. In fact he loses a star if he already has one. I have a “great tactician” – still no star.
Bug 3
In the battlefield interface, when trying to mass select units with hot keys:
Control-I selects both infantry and slingers
Control-M selects just archers (not slingers)
I hope this info is useful to you (I am really not nagging, I am trying to help).
Slainte,
Cruin.
BTW
I have now discovered so many bugs and quirky things that I think it unfair to keep posting them about an older version. So I have broken down and decided to go through the labor of getting the latest version installed, before I report any more problems. So if you think some of this is magically fixed in version 2.1b, then ignore it. I will report on any that persist in the new versions.
Slan liebh
Cruin.
Someone from the Mechanics Department will know this better than me, but none of those are bugs...
1 - Unfortunately you are just being unlucky, still those traits do not preclude in any way that those FMs will turn out as great/competent generals. In fact those traits are used to increase the likelihood or not of gaining other traits...
2 - That chain of traits increases line of sight and ambush, as it progresses, but all give +1 command star. Another trait caused your FM to lose stars. There are several other traits that increase stars and having the aforementioned chain increase progressively would be quite the broken feature...
3 - Cannot be helped, if we give the missile unit trait to the slingers they will fire over say 30° or such, which is not proper for slings, whose trajectory is different than that of a bow...
OK -- I am loving Ver 2.1b by the way -- is is sharp, beutiful, and works much better. Also you have adjusted unit stats way for the better -- things are much better balanced now (in EB II ver I, for instance, Hastati were actually stronger than Principes, for instance).
Graphics are lovely, and everything just seems to work better. Some of my earlier objections have now disappeared. For instance, generals seem to be getting their stars now (however, what has happened to triumphs? I have a General who has won 10 battles, and he is still not being offered a triumph!)
Some things are still a problem, though.
You really do need to write in the government descriptions what units will be free upkeep.
As for the missile trait to slingers -- since when do sling bullets and arrows fly with a different sort of trajectory?
Both fly a parabola. Arrows are a wee bit different because of the fletching, which causes them to slow down over long ranges due to air resistance and loss of energy to anti-spin friction (just another air resistance, really), but both projectiles fly a parabola. Slingers can (as easily as archers) achieve range by firing in a high arc -- maximum range is achieved at 45 degrees -- what is to stop a slinger firing a bullet at this angle? I do it often when shooting out to sea (in Alaskan forest, I don't get much chance otherwise).
By the way, I practice two different kinds of sling shot -- the "double-loop" or "figure eight" sling throw, or the simpler, faster, overhand "Apache" sling throw (when hunting small game) -- either one will allow me to fling a bullet at any angle, but there is not much point when using the Apache throw, which I use for short range, fairly flat-trajectory shots.
Slainte,
Cruin.
Another note on slingers:
I have been thinking about why you want to make slingers and archers different in the game -- other than the differences I pointed out in an earlier message (slingers are cheaper, more mobile, and can carry more amo). The problem comes when you put slingers behind infantry. In real life, this would be bad -- the sling bullets would hit the backs of the infantry causing them to howl.
This has nothing to do with trajectory. It has to do with accuracy over short range. Or, actually, it has more to do with having flexible control of the projectile's release point. An archer, can, with some care, hold his bow, sight through the arrow point, and shoot between infantry men standing in front of him, or otherwise avoid them (although, archers do, sometimes, make mistakes in the heat of battle -- and English infantry often howled about archers behind them during the 100-year war). Most slingers are not that accurate -- and have that wild sling thing going on -- it is much harder for them to "thread the needle" and put a sling bullet between close standing infantry.
So it is realistic to have the problem of slingers hitting friendly troops who are standing close in front of them. To accurately represent this in a game, you would need some new mechanism to distinguish archers and slingers. Some sort of transparency or protection for friendly troops from arrows, but not from sling bullets.
Watching the direction of development of TW game engines, I doubt we will ever see that.
Le durachdain,
Cruin.
Watching the direction of development of TW game engines, I doubt we will ever see that.
Yes, and that's really the clincher. We're limited by what the engine allows. (And also by what the A.I. can handle. A completely realistic mechanism that leads to A.I. stupidity isn't going to be implemented either.)
QuintusSertorius
01-21-2016, 12:48
Slingers do hit the men in front when you put them behind infantry.
Start Battle AI? -- How?
OK, here is a problem -- whenever one enters a battle, a handsome Nubian general says "Remember to start the AI before the battle" (I love that -- "remember" like you have told me sometime before!). Problem is, our handsome fellow does not say *HOW* to start the AI. From searching these forums, I saw someone say you start it up by clicking on the general's portrait. If this is correct, then he should say something like "Good job: by clicking my smiling face, you have started up the battlefield AI." If, on the other hand, you start it by dismissing the portrait, then he should say, "By Golly, you need to click on my portrait again to start up the AI!"
If this is wrong, and you start up the AI in some other method, then by Zambula's Arse he needs to *SAY HOW* to do this!
With a smile,
Cruin.
I had a question about the indian city.Is it a mayan city?I can see no indian specialty in it?I hope you can not only focus on the army model but the architecture.Thanks
Could you Add more army and reble to nomadic faction and province?In nomadic area,There are loads of tribe.How could one outstand the other.Only when the nomadic faction defeat all the other competitor or rebels.They can held the whole province and lot of money and manpower.Otherwise,Nomadic faction should be poor to death
Will you make unit model for kushan and Han dynasty.As far as I know both this 2 country invaded the central asia in the time frame。Central asia is in the EBII map.Kushan and Han are 2 of the 4 greatest empire on earth at that time.It is a shame that they could not show up
Could you Add more army and reble to nomadic faction and province?In nomadic area,There are loads of tribe.How could one outstand the other.Only when the nomadic faction defeat all the other competitor or rebels.They can held the whole province and lot of money and manpower.Otherwise,Nomadic faction should be poor to death
True, but it would make for a very frustrating game when you play the Nomads. And if you don't play the nomads, the rebels will cripple the nomadic factions so they will never grow strong to threaten the player.
Will you make unit model for kushan and Han dynasty.As far as I know both this 2 country invaded the central asia in the time frame。Central asia is in the EBII map.Kushan and Han are 2 of the 4 greatest empire on earth at that time.It is a shame that they could not show up
Unfortunately, there is a limit too how many factions M2:TW can have. If EB included Kushan and Han, they would have to drop 2 others. Since the Kushan and Han were only occasionally interested in Central Asia, and didn't stay there, the team decided not to include them.
A question of courage:
OK – here is a wee problem (you guys are probably starting to hate me right about now):
When I am in a big battle, I like to withdraw my slingers and archers after they are out of amo, especially if they are more expensive mercenary types (Balletic or Rhodian). This gets them out of the way, and also frees up slots for reinforcements, if I happen to have any.
But in EBII, if I do this, my general gets a black mark (a “doubtful courage”) for running away from a battle, even though he himself has not withdrawn.
If you are trying to say he lacks courage for bringing in reinforcements, then I say “fie” – that just means he is a good general who knows how to maneuver and marshal his forces. In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark – again, it shows he is a smart commander who know when to run so he can fight again.
I know vanilla Rome TW and Med TW tended towards rewarding bravery over intelligence – and that's all very well, winning against the odds should be rewarded – but careful and smart play should not be penalized. Historically, it is the general who wins that gets the triumph, and if he wins while avoiding losses, even better.
Slainte,
Cruin.
A question of courage:
OK – here is a wee problem (you guys are probably starting to hate me right about now):
When I am in a big battle, I like to withdraw my slingers and archers after they are out of amo, especially if they are more expensive mercenary types (Balletic or Rhodian). This gets them out of the way, and also frees up slots for reinforcements, if I happen to have any.
But in EBII, if I do this, my general gets a black mark (a “doubtful courage”) for running away from a battle, even though he himself has not withdrawn.
If you are trying to say he lacks courage for bringing in reinforcements, then I say “fie” – that just means he is a good general who knows how to maneuver and marshal his forces. In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark – again, it shows he is a smart commander who know when to run so he can fight again.
I know vanilla Rome TW and Med TW tended towards rewarding bravery over intelligence – and that's all very well, winning against the odds should be rewarded – but careful and smart play should not be penalized. Historically, it is the general who wins that gets the triumph, and if he wins while avoiding losses, even better.
Slainte,
Cruin.
That's a strange thing. I figured "doubtful courage" only applied to to generals running away.
Gigantus: any way of fixing this?
Gigantus
02-03-2016, 05:43
That's how the game mechanic works when you press the 'Rout' (run away in uncontrollable panic) button. If that didn't lead to a penalty then I would consider it a major cheat - use your expensive missile units and then let them rout once they expended their ammunition, like he cited, is such an example.
In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark
Utter BS where I am concerned - he was too dumb not to commit in the first place (unless he couldn't prevent to enter an engagement - which again is poor tactics to start with)
That's how the game mechanic works when you press the 'Rout' (run away in uncontrollable panic) button. If that didn't lead to a penalty then I would consider it a major cheat - use your expensive missile units and then let them rout once they expended their ammunition, like he cited, is such an example.
But I think he is talking about the "withdraw" option, not the "rout" one. And withdrawing troops that cannot contribute to the battle further is a sensible precaution, not a sign of cowardice. It only becomes cowardice if the general himself leaves, or lets the entire army fall back before the battle is decided (but I get that the M2:TW trait engine cannot recognize the latter situation).
Utter BS where I am concerned - he was too dumb not to commit in the first place (unless he couldn't prevent to enter an engagement - which again is poor tactics to start with)
Yes, it's a sign of poor tactics, not lack of courage.
Gigantus
02-03-2016, 12:29
You cannot 'withdraw' single units during battle - you can just force them to rout. What's the problem with marching them to a quiet or hidden spot? That's what I always do.
Withdrawal before battle (refusing to engage) does not cause a penalty afaik.
Yes -- I am talking of a simple withdrawal of some missile troops (using the "withdraw" button) -- that in itself (or the bringing in of reinforcements, I don't know which) triggers the Coward increment, and gives the general a "Doubtful Courage".
As for withdrawing entirely, Gigantus responded to:
"In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark"
with:
"Utter BS where I am concerned - he was too dumb not to commit in the first place (unless he couldn't prevent to enter an engagement - which again is poor tactics to start with) "
Well... you have the right to think that, but it is pretty common military tactics for a force to sometimes engage with the intention of withdrawing before the battle is "over" (whatever “over” means here). For instance, one might want to weaken the enemy, or delay him, or draw him out, or provoke him, or simply probe his forces.
You might think engaging a strong force without clear hope of winning is dumb, or poor tactics, but sometimes it is, simply, the best option open to a General.
And, inevitably, it can happen due to things beyond a General's control – the enemy has reinforcements or some tactical advantage that was hidden by the fog of war, or expected friendly reinforcements did not arrive on time, or, as often as not, the General simply underestimated the enemy's strength. And, here finally, you can call it “dumb” – but all the best Generals in history have done this on occasion. So what would you have him do under these circumstances – bravely fight it out until all his men are killed or routed? Or recognize the situation, and withdraw his forces in the best order he can manage?
In the simple terms of TW games, I know a lot of the above situations (of truncated engagements) do not apply -- and game battles are "won" or "lost" by a count of numbers, or by which army routs -- but that only sometimes reflects how battle are fought in the real world -- where battles have a mission, or purpose, which often goes beyond these simple terms. And that was also true in the classic world -- think of Thermopholie, where the Spartans entered a losing battle to delay the enemy, or if you want negative examples, think of Pyrrus, who bravely won battles but lost the war, or even Hannibal who could gain a victory but "did not know what to do with it."
Anyway, interesting as the discussion is, in this case, that is not the EBII problem I am talking about. Trust me, I did not hit any "rout" button, I just withdrew missile troops and brought in some reinforcements, and the General was tagged Coward (this has happened a few times). As for whether doing this is a “major cheat” – don't be silly, it is part of the game, it is the only way you can bring in reinforcements (it is how the enemy brings in reinforcements too). It is also described in the TW manual as an “ordered withdrawal of troops” as opposed to a disorganized rout.
Regards,
Cruin.
OOps -- I see our replies were sent in together, so we missed each other.
Gigantus you said-
You cannot 'withdraw' single units during battle - "
Sorry, yes you can. There is a withdraw button on the wheel, when the unit card is selected. And if you are fielding large armies, it is the only way to clear a slot to bring in reinforcements.
Regards,
Cruin.
That "withdraw button" is a "rout button" really, game engine-wise you are forcing the selected unit to panic off the battlefield...
Historically missiles troops were infamous for skirmishing, sitting the battle out and coming back to cut down heavier and slower opponents. Already choosing to "withdraw" them away from the battlefield is ahistorical and gamey...
About the delaying tactics, harassing etc. Perfectly agreed, but silly CA made an engine not based on actual tactics and warfare. The game will always consider those as routs, for example nomadic factions cannot shoot all their arrows, withdraw and call it a victory. That's the system we have to work with...
As for such functions "being part of the game", well the actual design behind the game isn't about accuracy, so in our mod those are cheats really...
You have the freedom to use them, but the mod is not tailored for their use...
Regarding the need to get reinforcements in, M2TW allows them to be led by the AI and you can even select their behaviour between defensive and offensive. Thus fielding more than 20 units on the battle map...
Even if in the manual it is called ordered, the workaround they used with the engine is to force a rout. Thus when we script that routing causes the General to have the possibility to gain the doubtful courage trait. The scenario you've described can happen...
Had they made that button an actual ordered retreat, then we'd have no issues here as the engine would register it as something else...
Gigantus
02-03-2016, 14:59
That "withdraw button" is a "rout button" really, game engine-wise you are forcing the selected unit to panic off the battlefield...
That's what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear.
Well... you have the right to think that, but it is pretty common military tactics for a force to sometimes engage with the intention of withdrawing before the battle is "over" (whatever “over” means here). For instance, one might want to weaken the enemy, or delay him, or draw him out, or provoke him, or simply probe his forces
Sorry for being blunt: trying to apply that to a game engine one knows that it doesn't (can't) support it and then complain about it is what eventually led me to the 'dumb' response. Guerrilla tactics simply are not supported by the game, never have, never will. It has got 'Total' in the name = if you engage in a battle be prepared to be decimated, routed, annihilated. Expecting to be able walk away when it doesn't go well for you is a 'common' desire but utterly unrealistic in this game. You either win a battle, get annihilated or rout. And leaving the battle field during the battle is routing where the game engine is concerned - regardless what the reason is.
You want to weaken the enemy? Then you annihilate his armies and\or take his settlements.
You want to provoke him? Then raid his settlements (raze and leave to revolt).
You want to probe his forces? Send a spy, or sacrifice a cheap unit to reconnoiter.
If you wish to use more realistic tactics then I can recommend the 'Order of Battle (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjU2N2l29vKAhVEB44KHQYmD-cQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slitherine.com%2Fgames%2Forder_of_battle_pacific&usg=AFQjCNEVZg1QFtX0rvma2TSuH63-DUjPXQ&sig2=4yKrB8vHIANxhyd_pHgQNg&bvm=bv.113034660,d.c2E)' game series (I totally enjoyed the 'Morning Sun' DLC) - Total War is the wrong choice for it.
Once more - sorry for being blunt. But this is not an advanced combat\strategy simulator - ignoring the limitations and expecting otherwise is simply willful ignorance.
When does a withdrawal become a rout?
I guess most of this is in reply to Arjos, but some is also to Gigantos. You guys are starting to circle the wagons, so I am having hard time seeing who is firing back from behind the wheels.
No– the withdraw button is what it says: a withdraw button – I know it uses the same icons (the white flags) but it is different from a a panicked rout.
For one, the unit will not, by itself “rally” or come back (they have been ordered to go)
Neither will they run off in crazy directions. They will head strait for the border.
It is reversible – if the unit has not left the field, you can change your mind and call them back.
Lastly, it is described in the TW manuals as serving this purpose, so obviously, that was the original intention. Rewriting or re-interpreting that intention might be your choice, but that is what you are doing here.
“Historically missiles troops were infamous for skirmishing, sitting the battle out and coming back to cut down heavier and slower opponents. Already choosing to "withdraw" them away from the battlefield is ahistorical and gamey...”
I'm not so sure about this – it was sometimes true during medieval times, where archers had some armor and carried swords, and I'm sure it happened during classical times, but I don't see some poor Greek slinger going into the fray to take on a roman legionary.
Anyway, that is not its purpose. Withdraw simply tells the unit to get itself out of harms way, so I (the general here) do not have to worry about it anymore. I expect them to go away and avoid trouble – it does not always work, sometimes they can get caught by some cavalry unit or other while withdrawing, and that is quite historical.
Whether CA made a game based on more complex strategy and tactics or not, I can still attempt to use them in play (can't stop myself really). As for whether it gives a bad mark for withdrawing from a battle or not, it does not, as far as I know (although, as I said, it tends to overemphasize a simplistic view of heroism, by, for instance, rewarding heroic victories, even if the general stupidly lost practically all his men).
But that does not mean EBII has to go further and penalize a general for withdrawing some troops. Forgive me if I am wrong here, but I believe the “Coward” attribute (level 1 being “Doubtful courage”) is an EBII attribute. Is this not so? If it is, then it was your decision to penalize withdrawal, not CA's.
As for bringing in reinforcements as AI-controlled armies – I know one can do this, I just prefer not too (they are just too stupid). But obviously if the game gave me a mechanism not to have to do this, and to bring in reinforcements (slowly) as I clear slots for them, then it is not a cheat for me to do so.
The enemy, AI armies, may actually need to rout some of their units to get in their reinforcements, I think the mechanism is a wee bit different, they seem to get all their reinforcing units at once. But anyway, the enemy AI gets reinforcements too – so it's all fair, there is no cheat here.
Lastly, as for enemies withdrawing, you said:
“nomadic factions cannot shoot all their arrows, withdraw and call it a victory”
Are you talking about withdrawing some archers to get their reinforcements? Or withdrawing all their army to save from losing too many men. They do both, often, at least in Vanilla TW. They have to withdraw (or in the simplified AI options, it might actually be rout) some of their forces before they can get reinforcements. They can then easily continue to a “victory.”
As for withdrawing all their forces, they don't get a “victory,” but neither do I get one if I withdraw all my forces. But as to them not doing it – don't kid yourself! In vanilla TW they do it all the time. Actually, I was always impressed by the way the Hun and Timmerid armies in MedII TW would attack fearlessly, and then, if the battle went against them, reverse and get the hell out of there. They seemed to care as little as I did as to whether the scroll said it was a “victory” or not.
You can't have this both ways. You claim that it is the CA game engine that actually considers withdrawals as routs, but then you go on to assert that “as for such functions "being part of the game", well the actual design behind the game isn't about accuracy, so in our mod those are cheats really...” Which is it? It is that they don't have a “withdrawal” function, or is it that they do, but it was not accurate, so those are cheats.
And as for saying “You have the freedom to use them, but the mod is not tailored for their use...” This misses the point: the whole intellectual discussion about what constitute good or bad generalship is interesting in terms of game design but is not the real issue – the problem of tagging generals with “doubtful courage” is an EB II problem, it does not occur in vanilla TW. If you are desciding you want to change the game and start penalizing what you percieve as some kind of cowardice, then so be it – but you must be ready to accept criticism from people who question that decission.
Also, it's a bit like saying – “Well maybe this mod is not for you. You should just like it or leave it.” Then why invite criticism at all? Even more blatent were statements from Gigantus such as:
“Total War is the wrong choice for it (deeper strategies). Once more - sorry for being blunt. But this is not an advanced combat\strategy simulator - ignoring the limitations and expecting otherwise is simply willful ignorance.”
The phrase “willful ignorance” is interesting. Let me assure you, I can be plenty ignorant without any act of will on my part. But the way I chose to play my games (whether rugby, chess, checkers, MMO Siege Wars, or TW) are how I chose to play them. If I have a keen sense of strategy, then that's how I play, and I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)
I don't expect otherwise of the vanilla TW game engine – I expected otherwise of you – the creators of EBII. I expected if I told you of a problem, that you would say “Yup, that's a problem, we can fix that.” Which you can, quite easily, by changing export_character_attributes or whatever the file is called and fixing it. Instead you give me all this guff about the limitations of the CA game engine.
I thought these forums were about us users giving feedback? I kind of feel like I'm having to pull teeth here – I tell you of a problem, I explain why it's a problem. First you say my idea is “”BS and (by extension – seeing it it really me who is controlling the generals) that my strategies are “dumb” and “poor tactics.” When I gently are carefully explain that y ideas are quite fitting with historical military strategy, you agree, but then say that the TW engine is not built for historical accuracy – even though the whole point here was to try and improve on the TW engine. Then finally you start sort of ganging up and saying, “move on then, this game, and this mod, is just not for you!”
I think, perhaps, I have rubbed you the wrong way, or perhaps I have just found way too many faults in your baby, but like I say, it really feels like you guys are circling the wagons.
Look guys, I was for years a programmer, and I did a fair number of those years working in quality assurance. I am now a professional writer and editor. I am used to editing, and giving and receiving criticism.
I know that EBII is your baby, and you have every right to be proud of it. It is a marvelous piece of work. But it does (obviously) still have a few... uhem.... problems (I have seen, already, how you react to the word “bugs”). You have invited feedback (the battlefield general I mentioned before invites feedback every time one enters a battle). I am giving you just and honest feedback. But if you fight me so hard on these (what I consider) small and obvious problems, I fear to get into some of the deeper, but more subtle, historical inaccuracies in EBII.
So, I beg you all, try and accept the criticism I give as an attempt to help you improve EBII, and not a direct attack on your baby.
With fond regards,
Cruin.
You've missed entirely the discussion...
The engine itself forces, mechanics-speaking, units to rout when you click the "withdraw" button. They might tag it as a withdraw, but they are mechanically routing...
We have a trait that triggers when there are routs, real routs. However since the engine registers those "withdrawals" using the button as routs, it can happen the scenario you've experienced...
As for historicity, I already said how missiles, nor any unit, left the battlefield while others kept on fighting. Unless of course generals ordered a retreat and rearguards or others slowed down the opponents. Soon as the opponent routed the missiles were again on the scene and killing routers. This is what I was referring to, not what you understood as slingers attacking legionaries...
The feature of single units leaving the field, running away, is indeed a gamey one. We'd remove it even, but it comes from the vanilla infrastructure we are working on...
We welcome feedbacks and continuously work on that, the whole Mechanics department is at it basically 24/7...
When there is a problem or sensible feedback on broken behaviour we do work on it. Right now yours was a "I prefer/want it like this. Make it so" and not an objective problem...
The point in this specific case is that you are using what we consider an exploit (removing units to have player-led reinforcements come in), but of course we cannot tell the players how to play, hence my statement that you have the freedom to use them. However that is not the playstyle, which is tailored to this mod...
As Gigantus pointed out units not engaged in combat were kept at a distance, it would even be crazier to order units to go home basically as their comrades kept on fighting. Having even missiles as reserves could be a life-saving precaution. Nor did it ever happen that units simply run off the battlefield. Nor those units would want to leave the army themselves, lest they either became deserters, or were left to themselves to survive...
As for the tangible problem at hand: the doubtful courage due to "withdraw". I tried and apparently failed to make you understand that for the engine, after you click that button, the unit is routing. Hence it can trigger the trait. Since for the engine all of that is routing, real routs and withdraws/retreats, we cannot script in a way that the engine distinguishes them. Thus since the doubtful courage due to actual routs is something we want in the game, we cannot change the collateral result due to withdraws...
This is an example of the engine's limitations...
Also we do not consider it as a problem, because the scenario you're talking about (using ammo and withdraw missiles) is to all effect an innacurate and exploitative playstyle in our opinion...
I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)
Nope...
I expected if I told you of a problem, that you would say “Yup, that's a problem, we can fix that.”
The process is: we look at a feedback, we recognise what is going on, see whether it is a problem or not, see if "fixing" it would result in unwarranted consequences in other mechanics or not and then we fix it...
In this case there wasn't a problem and even if we acted on it, it would result in broken/undesired behaviour with the trait in question (since we cannot tell the engine, that if a player uses the withdraw button, he's not routing). The solution as we see it on our part, is to avoid exploitative playstyle on this one...
Using a fresh source of units, outside of the battlemap, which the enemy cannot interact with until the player himself decides, is indeed an exploit. Which again you are free to use, but the mod and its features isn't going to be edited for such scenarios. For example here we'd have to remove the trait, since the engine treats them all as routs...
Finally – someone says “we like that trait, so we want to keep it!”
Arjos:
your tone was a bit better in that last one, if I ignore the slightly pejorative:
“You've missed entirely the discussion... “
As a matter of fact, I had understood entirely what you were trying to say about the TW engine using the “rout” mechanism to withdraw troops. I'm not entirely convinced it does, though – If you watch units routing and withdrawing, they act differently, especially when you watch AI run enemy units withdraw – it is much more ordered than when they rout. If you've disassembled or otherwise seen the code I will bow to your superior knowledge of this, but I would then be curious how they achieve the differences.
When I pointed out some of the more obvious differences to you before, I was trying to make clear the “intent” of the withdraw command, no matter how it is actually implemented in code.
But yes, I do understand that the game engine could be setting a flag that looked the same whether a unit was routing or withdrawing. And I did understand that EBII was then picking up that flag and using it as a trigger for the Coward trait. I had, in fact, suspected as much from the beginning.
My point was that this was a decision you made, to have the Coward trait in the first place, it has nothing to do with how it is implemented, or how limited or sophisticated or unsophisticated is the TW engine. and that is where enters the argument about what constitute cowardice on the part of a general (whether he withdraws some units, or withdraws his whole army).
I thought the fact that it had unwanted consequences, penalizing players who played the game in a way obviously intended by the original manufacturers (who included this mechanism specifically so reinforcements could be brought into a battle), would tip the balance of the argument in favor of removing the trait. Frankly, I am surprised that you would fight so hard to keep such and unrealistic and ahistoric trait – “cowardice” – really? I wonder if anyone would have dared call Caesar a coward for all the times he retreated?
As for your value judgments about withdrawing troops being an inaccurate and exploitative play-style, well... I would not be wanting to tell you how you should play your games. I do agree, though, that entirely removing units from the battlefield is unrealistic. I would love to tell my archers to go off and hide somewhere, only there is no option for doing so. But worse is that the battlefield interface only contain 20 unit cards, so the only way to have bigger armies, is to bring them in somehow. Trust me, I would be happy to keep those lazy slingers and archers in play to help mop up the battlefield – and despite what I said before, when I don't need the reinforcements, I usually do.
Then you say, that bringing in fresh troops is an exploit. I'm not sure how you figure this, seeing as the AI can, and does, bring up to three armies of extra troops. But I guess, if you want really “brave” generals, who fight armies that are up to three times the size, then you can try penalizing the player who tries to bring in reinforcements by giving his generals a Coward point (and its -1 moral penalty) every time he dares to try this.
Or you can insist that if he brings in reinforcements, he lets the AI control them (though, I'm not sure why this is not exploitative play, while if the player controls them himself it is).
But I hazard that all this talk of what is exploitative play-style is a bit of a superior stance that you are taking in order to tell me how I should want to play my games.
Or when I say:
“I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)”
and you answer “Nope...” That is a cute, but nasty sarcasm (I assume you knew I was talking about finding ways to enjoy a game, despite its limitations, and not me asserting that one should exploit or cheat to win a game).
And all this superior moral stand on how a game should be played for what – exactly? You defend all this so that you can maintain the right to slap a coward sticker on generals who withdraw from battlefields – or are you going to claim that that is, somehow, realistic or historic?
Anyway, I did rather like your last answer. At least now I feel we are now having the discussion we should have been having all along, about why you want to keep this trait (and why I feel it is unjustified) – and not blaming it all on the TW engine.
Off course it is your design (or that of the EBII collective), and you have every right to take it in whatever direction you want. If you decide you really want this “coward” trait, and it is worthwhile despite it's unforeseen consequences to exploitative players like myself, then that is all fine.
Le Beanachdain,
With Blessings,
Cruin.
PS – this is nothing – wait till we start really talking about archers versus slingers.
Again no, the trait "Doubtful courage" is there for when the units and the general actually rout, ie they engage and run away. We want that trait in...
Due to the engine limitations, we cannot discern the withdraw button and units withdrawing. As I said the engine thinks they rout. If you even listen to them, they start shouting run away etc (the audio files of routing units)...
The latter behaviour of the trait (when you click withdraw and get the trait) is collateral, since it occurs during exploits for us it is a non-issue. Also as I said the only solution, since the engine cannot discern, would be the removal of the trait. Which is there to work when the units actually rout...
I cannot for the life of me make this any clearer...
The trait is for routing, real bonafide routing. If you use the retreat vanilla feature, which is forced routing on the engine, the engine understands that you've routed...
We want the trait to trigger with real routs, unfortunately it gets triggered by the withdraw button, because for the engine it is a rout...
I assume you knew I was talking about finding ways to enjoy a game, despite its limitations, and not me asserting that one should exploit or cheat to win a game
Actually no, the way you posted that paragraph sounded that you use such quirks of the system to gain advantages and suit your tactics...
Still I'm in no way saying your playstyle is wrong or right, I merely stated that in our opinion using fresh reinforcements from withdrawn slots is an exploit and we do not tailor the mod around that...
There is no right or wrong playstyle, just we have to pick one to edit the mechanics around it...
When the player avoids the AI-led reinforcements, specifically to micro them, gains an advantage and he's exploiting the engine. Since even the AI's reinforcements get in the battlefield from the start (although on this point it might depend on the PC running the game)...
Still it isn't affected in anyway by the mod, as I said there is the freedom to use them. However in cases as this one, where a working trait has a collateral behaviour during an exploit, we won't remove the trait (had we had the engine tell the difference between rout and withdraw we'd edit that in already: we simply cannot do that)...
True, but it would make for a very frustrating game when you play the Nomads. And if you don't play the nomads, the rebels will cripple the nomadic factions so they will never grow strong to threaten the player.
Unfortunately, there is a limit too how many factions M2:TW can have. If EB included Kushan and Han, they would have to drop 2 others. Since the Kushan and Han were only occasionally interested in Central Asia, and didn't stay there, the team decided not to include them.
First，can you lower the upkeep of nomadic tribe.Can you lower the difficulty of buy the rebel of.If the nomadic faction win a great battle.They can get dignity .If they have the dinity so high that they and bribe the rebel into their troop with nearly no cost .But they may also rebel away easily when they were defeated in battle.In this case they may held 10 stacks of army in no time.With it,they can :daisy: the settled faction :daisy:.This is the most funny and historical way I can think of .
Second.I dont means that they show as a faction in the game.can they appear as rebels.Large hords of rebles.this will be most funny.I hope the rebel will be the focus of this game.Not a occasionally small rebel.But huge hords of rebel.This is more historical
what about the architecture of the taxila?Could you make it more historical?An Aztec city is unbearale.
Gigantus
02-04-2016, 05:55
Let me just toss some technical stuff in here:
Withdrawal before battle can be monitored independently from withdrawal in battle, linked to the withdrawal button of the prebattle screen:
WhenToTest PreBattleWithdrawal
Condition WasAttacker
and I_WithdrawsBeforeBattle
and BattleOdds > 0.7
and BattleOdds < 1.3
Affects IndecisiveAttacker 2 Chance 100
Affects IndecisiveAttacker 2 Chance 60
The condition Routs tests if a unit has left the battle field during battle - regardless of the reason. The docudemons claim that it is only related to the commanding character but it would appear that it applies to all his units, eg a routing archer seems to trigger that condition. I'll set up a simple test to confirm if that is the case, eg have a one sided battle with the attacker having overwhelming odds in their favor and then forcing a regular unit to rout.
One of three triggers using the routs condition:
Trigger UnhingedByDefeatAndFlight
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition Routs
Affects Deranged 1 Chance 8
Affects Insane 1 Chance 6
The other two are the opposing sides of "counter" traits, using trait level ranges as secondary condition:
Trigger battle5_brave
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition Routs
and Trait Brave > 0
Affects Brave -4 Chance 100
;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle5_coward
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition Routs
and Trait Brave < 1
Affects Coward 4 Chance 100
There are five more triggers that test the absence of the condition (and not routs).
Gigantus
02-04-2016, 10:28
Did that testing by using this simple script in Bare Geomod:
monitor_event PostBattle CharacterIsLocal
and Routs
historic_event FIRST_WINDMILL
end_monitor
First stage was to test the triggering without the Routs condition: the message fired in autoresolve, regular end of battle and forced exiting.
Second stage was to rout a unit and then conclude with a forced exit: only the commanding officer triggered the script and only if he had exited the map completely. A simple exit from the battle (pic gone from line up) was not sufficient - the green pip had to leave the radar map completely. This can presumably be used as a minor exploit to preserve the general of an annihilated\totally routed army from picking up that trait: the battle will stop if he is the last unit over the battle line, but will not count as routed as he did not exit the map completely (requires testing).
Summary:
Forced withdrawal\routing (clicking that button) triggers the condition
but only for the commanding unit (very likely for other named characters as well - not tested)
and only if it has left the map completely
Which means that the claim of regular units being withdrawn was the reason for obtaining the negative trait is not valid.
Not valid as well is my assumption that the condition would fire for any unit within an army.
Which means the exploit of expending a missile unit's projectiles and then withdraw it completely for protection (or replacement) will live on, or whittling down a unit to minimum numbers and then force withdrawing it so that fresh re-reinforcements can replace it. But then it's a prerogative of every player whether he really needs to perform actions that are not available to the AI, so let me not harp on about it.
I am getting concerned about the confrontational tone of this exchange. I believe I get where the EB team are coming from:
1) The M2:TW engine, or at least the part that deals with traits, considers "ordered withdrawal" the same as "rout", and therefore cannot distinguish between the two.
2) The EB team feels that because the A.I. starts with 20 units and doesn't withdraw troops (whether to get reinforcements or not), the player should do the same. Otherwise, it's an exploit, as the A.I. cannot do this.
Both are perfectly reasonable arguments (the second is arguable, but I see your point). The problem is that they weren't explained, initially. Gigantus simply assumed we knew this, and reprimanded us for wanting to use this exploit (and messing up the real use of the 'doubtful courage' trait as well). That's not what either myself or Cruin asked for, and that's what prompted the irritable responses.
I hope we can continue this discussion; I am very interested in Gigantus' findings about the rout mechanic. But first:
Let's take a deep breath and try to see where the other is coming from before accusing him/her of not listening. This applies to everyone.
First，can you lower the upkeep of nomadic tribe.Can you lower the difficulty of buy the rebel of.If the nomadic faction win a great battle.They can get dignity .If they have the dinity so high that they and bribe the rebel into their troop with nearly no cost .But they may also rebel away easily when they were defeated in battle.In this case they may held 10 stacks of army in no time.With it,they can :daisy: the settled faction :daisy:.This is the most funny and historical way I can think of .
I don't speak for the team, but its sounds a bit too complicated to do in M2TW.
Second.I dont means that they show as a faction in the game.can they appear as rebels.Large hords of rebles.this will be most funny.I hope the rebel will be the focus of this game.Not a occasionally small rebel.But huge hords of rebel.This is more historical
There was something like that in EB1, but it didn't work very well, so it only triggered if the player was playing an Eastern faction.
what about the architecture of the taxila?Could you make it more historical?An Aztec city is unbearale.
Aztec sounds really wrong. Could the team comment on that?
Gigantus
02-04-2016, 13:21
I am getting concerned about the confrontational tone of this exchange. I believe I get where the EB team are coming from:
1) The M2:TW engine, or at least the part that deals with traits, considers "ordered withdrawal" the same as "rout", and therefore cannot distinguish between the two.
2) The EB team feels that because the A.I. starts with 20 units and doesn't withdraw troops (whether to get reinforcements or not), the player should do the same. Otherwise, it's an exploit, as the A.I. cannot do this.
Both are perfectly reasonable arguments (the second is arguable, but I see your point). The problem is that they weren't explained, initially. Gigantus simply assumed we knew this, and reprimanded us for wanting to use this exploit (and messing up the real use of the 'doubtful courage' trait as well). That's not what either myself or Cruin asked for, and that's what prompted the irritable responses.
I hope we can continue this discussion; I am very interested in Gigantus' findings about the rout mechanic. But first:
Let's take a deep breath and try to see where the other is coming from before accusing him/her of not listening. This applies to everyone.
My finding regarding the mechanics of the Routs condition is in post #79 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?149003-Fans-suggestion-thread-for-future-releases&p=2053683594&viewfull=1#post2053683594) - it should lay to rest further speculation.
Apologies if my responses came across as harsh - in my view player's actions that the AI is not capable of are simply exploits and a very good reason has to exist why I would entertain it.
First，can you lower the upkeep of nomadic tribe.Can you lower the difficulty of buy the rebel of.If the nomadic faction win a great battle.They can get dignity .If they have the dinity so high that they and bribe the rebel into their troop with nearly no cost .But they may also rebel away easily when they were defeated in battle.In this case they may held 10 stacks of army in no time.With it,they can https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/gc/gc-daisy.gif the settled faction https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/gc/gc-daisy.gif.This is the most funny and historical way I can think of .
Second.I dont means that they show as a faction in the game.can they appear as rebels.Large hords of rebles.this will be most funny.I hope the rebel will be the focus of this game.Not a occasionally small rebel.But huge hords of rebel.This is more historical
Upkeep is a matter of individual unit entries in the EDU file - if the unit is restricted to a certain culture or faction then there is no problem to change the value.
Bribing is a global setting and the only thing that I imagine might have an individual influence on the monetary amount is diplomatic skill.
Giving one faction a large army (multiple stacks) and strong rebel forces as opponents in their regions more often then not results in an attack on other settlements and not on the rebel stacks, something that could seriously mess up game play.
what about the architecture of the taxila?Could you make it more historical?An Aztec city is unbearale.
I am not aware of any Aztec structures in the latest version.
I took the advise of Ludens. I took a deep breath, and feel better for it. I am sorry for any part I had in making this discussion confrontational.
Gigantus: Please, please, stop with the tests. You have better things you can be doing with your time.
You don't need to prove to me or anyone how the engine deals with routs or withdrawals or anything. I know Ludens seems interested in them as an intellectual exercise, and if that is why you are doing them fine, but for me, it is not important, or germane, to know all bitty-gritty details.
And Arjos, you can stop trying to make things plainer to me. I told you, I understood your points all along.
I could not care less about how the engine handles routs or the withdrawal button.
If you guys feel that the act of withdrawing is some sort of exploit, despite the fact that it was clearly intended as part of the original game, that is fine -- who cares how it is actually implemented in game code? Using the rout routines, or some part of them, as far as I am concerned, is a perfectly reasonable shortcut for the TW programming team.
Also, I have no problems with the AI deploying its reinforcement in a different method than an actual human player. After all, it would be silly to ask an AI: "Do you want to have the AI control your reinforcements, or control them yourself?"
I admit also that the way they get around the human's limitation of having only 20 unit cards, by allowing the human to withdraw some units from the battlefield to bring in fresh troops, I admit that all is a bit of a kludge, and, somewhat "ahistoric."
To call it an exploit is a bit extreme, seeing as there is no advantage to the human player here -- it takes a long time to get those units off the field, and fresh troops into the fight, while the AI brings in all his reinforcements fast, in formation, almost ready for the fight.
But if you want to call it some kind of exploit that's fine, it is really a small, petty, point to me.
What I was really trying to argue, is that to change the original intent of the game, no matter how implemented, because you want to preserve a certain trait that you have introduced, was an important decision, and it should depend on the value of the trait you were introducing – is this trait worth making changes in the way the original game is actually played?
Unless, of course, it was your original intent to try and discourage players from using the withdraw button – but that would be a bit of a sleekit way of going about it, and I don't believe for a minute you were hatching Machiavellian plots to change the behavior of players.
So is this trait important enough to change the nature of the game?
And my argument from the beginning (one that you have ignored, aside from Gigantus originally calling it “BS”), is that a “cowardice” trait is unrealistic and ahistoric. It is a silly trait, and, in my opinion, a bit “high school”. Arjos, the only thing you say in response, is the imperious “we want the trait,” – as if I have no right to question this decision. That sort of implies you invite criticism so long as it does not question any decisions you have already made. If that is indeed your stance and policy, then make that clear, and I will not waste my time making these points.
Presuming it it not, I will make the following points (to back my assertion that a “cowardice” trait is unhistoric), and then, I really have nothing more to say on the subject.
If a general withdrew from a battle, back in Rome, a general's enemies might snicker privately “coward”, but those enemies would be snickering about other stuff even if the general had a “heroic” success. But politically, success or failure over the campaign was what really counted. No one cared whether Varus cut a brave figure when he marched without scouts into the Teutoburg forest, they just called him incredibly stupid and incompetent when he lost the legions. No one, even in Rome, questioned Hannibal's courage for losing and withdrawing so many battles --they admired, respected, and hated him for how he recovered and came back doubly strong.
Generals should have every right to withdraw from a battlefield without penalty of stigma, and historically they often did. Whether we call it a “withdrawal” or a “rout” depends on how much control and order the general maintains during the retreat. If some units, or even all of them, even the general's own bodyguard, “rout”, without the generals order to do so, perhaps that shows the general has trouble inspiring courage or otherwise controlling his men, and perhaps he deserves censor for that – you could strip him of a star, for instance – but as you have taken great lengths to prove, I doubt the game engine is sophisticated enough for you to distinguish between a withdrawal and a total rout, and frankly, I don't think such a persnickety censor is worth the trouble. The game already gives the player a disapproving scroll, and perhaps other censors, for losing the battle.
Anyway, as I said in my last entry, this is really a small thing. If you want to hang onto the “Coward” trait, who am I to take it from you? For all I know it might be a favored baby of one of you, and that person spent precious time coding it and making sure it worked, and now is hurt or offended that it has caused this little controversy. If this is true, I am sorry. I really do appreciate all the time you spend on this mod.
Regards,
Cruin.
Gigantus
02-05-2016, 03:01
I finished my tests (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?149003-Fans-suggestion-thread-for-future-releases&p=2053683594&viewfull=1#post2053683594) before Ludens even asked for it https://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll264/Gigantus_pics/Emoticons/tongue.gif
It's actually one of the things I do for the EBII team, testing is also one of the reasons why I put together my basic mod set up (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=352216) that I used for this test.
I admit also that the way they get around the human's limitation of having only 20 unit cards, by allowing the human to withdraw some units from the battlefield to bring in fresh troops, I admit that all is a bit of a kludge, and, somewhat "ahistoric."
This was later expanded\complimented by allowing the player basic direct control over his re-inforcements. It was initially fudged by game mechanics until mods started using the unlimited_men_on_battlefield = 1 switch in the CFG file. It means that all re-inforcements enter the battle field shortly after the battle starts and that the player has limited control over them, individual unit commands are not possible - only general stance and movement of the army can be controlled. Which, I suppose, is roughly how reality might have been.
Generals should have every right to withdraw from a battlefield without penalty of stigma, and historically they often did.
I high lighted the main criteria (I have a number of 'should' wishes myself for the game - none of which can be implemented) - the game simply cannot distinguish between a 'natural' and a 'forced' withdrawal.
As you pointed out, even if it was an ordered withdrawal the general might have been censored. The 'coward' trait actually removes command points (stars) at higher levels, but that would take more then just one withdrawal\rout.
For all I know it might be a favored baby of one of you, and that person spent precious time coding it and making sure it worked, and now is hurt or offended that it has caused this little controversy. If this is true, I am sorry.
Don't fret - this was actually one of the more easier trait sets and I can assure you no one has personal feelings about it.
The use of the "Routs" condition to apply a negative trait\reduction of trait level is actually as old as the game itself - in 'vanilla' it reduces the dread\chivalry rating. (triggers battle3Chivalry_Dread_Routing and battle3Chivalry_Dread_Routing2)
My finding regarding the mechanics of the Routs condition is in post #79 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?149003-Fans-suggestion-thread-for-future-releases&p=2053683594&viewfull=1#post2053683594) - it should lay to rest further speculation.
Apologies if my responses came across as harsh - in my view player's actions that the AI is not capable of are simply exploits and a very good reason has to exist why I would entertain it.
Upkeep is a matter of individual unit entries in the EDU file - if the unit is restricted to a certain culture or faction then there is no problem to change the value.
Bribing is a global setting and the only thing that I imagine might have an individual influence on the monetary amount is diplomatic skill.
Giving one faction a large army (multiple stacks) and strong rebel forces as opponents in their regions more often then not results in an attack on other settlements and not on the rebel stacks, something that could seriously mess up game play.
I am not aware of any Aztec structures in the latest version.
The rebel should be very ferocious.If players dont attack them.They will attack players.It is a things of conqueror or conquered.If players attack other settlement without defeat the rebel in his settlement .They will lose their home
Could you change the space that army can move?If they are in a enemys province for too much time,they will have the difficulty of finding food.They will get the traits of short of supply.They cant move far because they need a lot of time to search food.I think supply line should be add to the game if the game want to be historical
Gigantus
02-05-2016, 04:11
Modifying AI behavior is one of the more difficult things to do - the problem here is to strike a behavior balance, scripting it like you suggest would very likely result in a 'capture the castle' AI behavior, forcing you to actually play defensive.
There are traits that simulate food supplies: "Supplies" and "FriendlyTerritory" - both change movement points based on where an army is (home land or enemy territory) and for how long.
Could you also change the map?Could you make zagros mountain more like a mountain not a small hills,make persia more like a basin.Could you use the map in www.map-for-free .com to reshape the map
Gigantus
02-05-2016, 04:34
Elevating mountains above a certain height is only possible for inaccessible areas - it will otherwise have strange (and unwanted) effects on battles, black radar maps and units stranded on inaccessible cliffs are some of these effects.
And my argument from the beginning (one that you have ignored, aside from Gigantus originally calling it “BS”), is that a “cowardice” trait is unrealistic and ahistoric. It is a silly trait, and, in my opinion, a bit “high school”. Arjos, the only thing you say in response, is the imperious “we want the trait,” – as if I have no right to question this decision. That sort of implies you invite criticism so long as it does not question any decisions you have already made. If that is indeed your stance and policy, then make that clear, and I will not waste my time making these points.
Presuming it it not, I will make the following points (to back my assertion that a “cowardice” trait is unhistoric), and then, I really have nothing more to say on the subject.
If a general withdrew from a battle, back in Rome, a general's enemies might snicker privately “coward”, but those enemies would be snickering about other stuff even if the general had a “heroic” success. But politically, success or failure over the campaign was what really counted.
The point is that running away from danger was, among all the cultures in the mod, something akin to a crime. It unmade social status, it was often met with executions, exiles or falls from power. Such an important aspect cannot be left out from a project such as ours, centered so much on historical accuracy...
And this solution is already mild, Punic FMs and generals should get basically a "kill_self" command after a defeat to represent the Karthadastim crucifying them for example...
Generals should have every right to withdraw from a battlefield without penalty of stigma, and historically they often did. Whether we call it a “withdrawal” or a “rout” depends on how much control and order the general maintains during the retreat. If some units, or even all of them, even the general's own bodyguard, “rout”, without the generals order to do so, perhaps that shows the general has trouble inspiring courage or otherwise controlling his men, and perhaps he deserves censor for that – you could strip him of a star, for instance – but as you have taken great lengths to prove, I doubt the game engine is sophisticated enough for you to distinguish between a withdrawal and a total rout, and frankly, I don't think such a persnickety censor is worth the trouble. The game already gives the player a disapproving scroll, and perhaps other censors, for losing the battle.
Here's the quirk: engine limitations!!!
Unfortunately we cannot discern it and we feel that the trait occurring with real routs is more important. It is already something of a compromise as it isn't as punishing as it would've been. Collaterally it occurs with withdraws...
No one cared whether Varus cut a brave figure when he marched without scouts into the Teutoburg forest, they just called him incredibly stupid and incompetent when he lost the legions. No one, even in Rome, questioned Hannibal's courage for losing and withdrawing so many battles --they admired, respected, and hated him for how he recovered and came back doubly strong.
Still imo you are focusing too much on the aftermaths and specific historical figures, knowing what followed. Yours is a series of abstracted causes and effects with no humanity in it...
The now and present is completely left out of your preferential scenario you've described, any levied man, political enemy, disgrunted/tired soldier etc would look even at tactical retreats as a sign of weakness and would lose faith in their general (think of the Cunctator, hell even setbacks by Alexandros were met by doubts). Do note that our trait is doubtful courage, you are the only one rethorically referring to it as cowardice. It is at the 3rd and 4th level of that trait chain that cowardice and fear are mentioned...
Had Varvs run away and even survived, they would've called him stupid, incompetent and coward. Roman martial culture demanded death and sacrifice over survival of defeat. Also focusing on the decline of the Mos Maiorvm in the 1st century BC isn't a good depiction/sample of Roman culture...
As for the picture you are referring to of Hannibal is all coming from the posterity and the knowledge of the ultimate victory by the Romani, not to mention the modern jibber jabber of military historians depicting Scipio as his disciple. It's war anyone with a brain sees something done properly by the enemy and acts on his own tactics accordingly...
I'd very much wonder how much respect and admiration were given to Hannibal by any Roman man during the years and days they were fighting and dying, because of him...
Plus that peachy idea of total admiration and respect is frankly again using a modern lense, the few quotes and propaganda behind them say how Hannibal could win, but had no idea of what to do with a victory for example. Far from being respectful admiration it is a statement of facts: he had victories on the field and no one could deny the dead, but he lost and in just few years lost everything, bested by Roman qualities...
Again even the infamous meeting with Scipio as an older exile, by stating that he would've been better than Alexandros had he won against Scipio. Underneath it is pretty lampant the assertment that no one, but Alexandros could best the Romani. And that was a dead demigod, which could be admired, but the Romani are saying that no one alive threatened them...
Not to mention this is all talks and ideas from the few educated elites, doesn't even touch on what everyone was thinking about Hannibal. A little glimpse is mothers spooking naughty children with the name of Hannibal: so much for admiration...
Plus gameplay-wise nothing prevents you to come back hard on the enemy, like your examples of Caesar, and gain positive traits compensating and overcoming (I'm not sure, but the doubtful courage might even go away) the effects of said trait...
Arjos, you arguments are well thought and well made, and if you will allow me, I withdraw my objections. Allow me also, to make the following observations.
{ The point is that running away from danger was, among all the cultures in the mod, something akin to a crime. It unmade social status, it was often met with executions, exiles or falls from power. Such an important aspect cannot be left out from a project such as ours, centered so much on historical accuracy...}
In the main, this is true, at least for the rank and file. I'm not so sure the same rule applied to the generals, though, who played in a more complex political arena. They would have to walk a tightrope between the hints of cowardice and accusations that they needlessly threw away the lives of their troops. This applied just as much in the period of EBII as it does today, and to all the cultures therein – some historians have a tendency to portray the people of history as primitive, less sophisticated, and less politically apt than the people of today. We need strive to avoid this tendency
{any levied man, political enemy, disgrunted/tired soldier etc would look even at tactical retreats as a sign of weakness and would lose faith in their general}
See, now that is what I wondered – at least for the disgrunted/tired soldier – seeing as the trait gives a -1 moral penalty. Would a tired soldier rally more to a general who had fearlessly led him into battle, however the battle was going, or would he be more inclined to trust a general that had demonstrated that he cared more for the lives of his soldiers than some possible slight to his own reputation? I admit it is a bit of a toss-up.
{hell even setbacks by Alexandros were met by doubts}
Initially I thought this was one of your best points. It certainly stopped me up to think. Now, though, I am rethinking it – I'm not sure they were doubts about his courage. More the opposite – that he would take them into death and destruction without fear or regard. So this, actually, is an argument against the inclusion of the trait.
{Do note that our trait is doubtful courage, you are the only one rethorically referring to it as cowardice.}
Oops! -- Please forgive me here. I was referring to it as the “Coward” trait because that is what it is called in the code (the first level giving the “Doubtful Courage” tag to the general). I did not mean to try and bolster my argument by giving it any extra weight of stigma by the term “coward”. I actually thought the term “Doubtful Courage” was very well chosen for the first level of the trait, and had, in itself, a certain poetry.
Anyway, aside from the niggly-naggly doubts mentioned above, I still think your arguments were well made, and in the balance, win the day. I am mollified by at least knowing your reasoning for including the trait, and I don't think it is quite as silly and childish as I did before.
Slàn liebh,
Cruin.
I find that you had very wrong setting for a light cavelry.I had 4 unit of cavelry archer shot at 1 unit of cavelry.It at least take me 10 minuit to totally kill them out.It is one of the lightest cavelry in the game.They have no armour.How could they take so many arrow?In really.Only 1 direct hit can make a light cavelry loose the ability to fight.Please be reasonable with the light cavelry.The Rome 2 total war does very well in this manner
Christianus
02-16-2016, 03:04
Is there any chance of HOTSEAT implemented to EBII? Just love playing several factions on the map at once with another mod.
Gigantus
02-16-2016, 04:00
There is a standard, hot seat capable mtw2.lnt file (mtw2-hotseat) in the data\menu folder. Rename the default file (mtw2) and then remove the suffix (-hotseat) from the hotseat file.
Because it is default it will yield some 'interesting' UI appearance in the menu, but it is usable and functional.
The hot seat capability should at some stage be coded into the default file we are using - that file is a night mare unless you really know what you are doing.
anubis88
02-16-2016, 12:43
Well hotseat has been added to the build for the next release. It seems to be fully working, so you won't need to do anything special, but just download the new version when it's out.
Yes, there's a "hotseat campaign" button in main menu now. About the mtw2.int file, i have worked it out so now I could even create new pages menus and display custom stuff there.
Gigantus
02-17-2016, 14:21
Hat off to you - took me ages to figure out how to add a version display graphic, never mind an animated element (short BIK) to the menu.
Making a guide about it couldn't hurt, I'd probably give it a read. :book2:
I find that you had very wrong setting for a light cavelry.
OK, as unit battlefield stat guy, I'll hear you out 血荐轩辕:
I had 4 unit of cavelry archer shot at 1 unit of cavelry.It at least take me 10 minuit to totally kill them out. It is one of the lightest cavelry in the game.They have no armour.
several questions pop to mind, reading this description:
-which horse archers (some suck, some don't: arrow type is important here)
-and which light cavalry? quite a few of the latter I know have 1 or 2 armor. (from a gameplay standpoint, there are hardly any units with 0 armor--certainly none for the cavalry). This is important to note, as this can affect things.
-was the enemy in loose formation for at least part of the time?
-did you surround the enemy or not?
-did the targeted unit have a shield (yes, this is a big deal)?
-how far were your men on average from the enemy?
-EDIT: oh, since we're dealing with Horse Archers: did you use the Cantabrian circle or not (again, it makes a big difference)
because, assuming it went like a typical fight (I'm assuming the enemy loosened its formation), 10 minutes is quite fast. You do realize I designed the stat system with slower combat relative to vanilla M2TW in mind, right? It'd have been slower had it not been for CA's decision to tie cohesion to lethality (and make the latter universal...)
How could they take so many arrow?In really.Only 1 direct hit can make a light cavelry loose the ability to fight.
Who said they're "taking" many arrows (here I'm assuming you mean "struck by"? consider these possibilities--all but the last of which happen in Real Life:
-not every shot will hit the target: most will in fact do the opposite (in fact, I made sure of this...)
-not every shot which hits the target will be serious enough to cripple or kill it (especially with arrows). the arrow might put a hole in a hat, co through a sleeve, etc. I might hit a shield, or glance off a helmet.
-horses have been known to take multiple shots with arrows--that's why as late as the Hundred years war, you hear dozens of descriptions of "horses maddened by arrows". You're assuming only the horseman would be hit hard. Obviously horses can be taken out with one shot, but that would be a lucky shot.
-while we're on the subject of horsemen: he and his horse share the same hit point, so if anything horses are weaker in this mod then they should be historically...
-the horse archer is on a horse bobbing up and down, trying to hit a lone target also moving up and down (and I'm assuming at least 70 meters away).
Please be reasonable with the light cavelry.The Rome 2 total war does very well in this manner
Well, this isn't Rome 2: total war. This is not a mod for fast-paced combat. And again, 10 minutes is actually not bad--especially as by your own words, you completely destroyed the unit.
EDIT: for anyone else making a comment along these lines: don't just give me a useless comment. I will tear you to pieces, as I've done here. a good post on the subject should clarify what units there were, how many (and ideally the level of experience), what happened (that is, actions by the enemy and by yourself), where the battle was fought (and if it was part of a campaign), and so on. What I've devised with Quintus, z3n, and many others' help is quite complicated, and depends on many variables--as it should. We can't fix any chinks if we can't even make heads or tails about your complaint. Believe me, you're not doing us any favors if you post like this.
OK, as unit battlefield stat guy, I'll hear you out 血荐轩辕:
several questions pop to mind, reading this description:
-which horse archers (some suck, some don't: arrow type is important here)
-and which light cavalry? quite a few of the latter I know have 1 or 2 armor. (from a gameplay standpoint, there are hardly any units with 0 armor--certainly none for the cavalry). This is important to note, as this can affect things.
-was the enemy in loose formation for at least part of the time?
-did you surround the enemy or not?
-did the targeted unit have a shield (yes, this is a big deal)?
-how far were your men on average from the enemy?
-EDIT: oh, since we're dealing with Horse Archers: did you use the Cantabrian circle or not (again, it makes a big difference)
because, assuming it went like a typical fight (I'm assuming the enemy loosened its formation), 10 minutes is quite fast. You do realize I designed the stat system with slower combat relative to vanilla M2TW in mind, right? It'd have been slower had it not been for CA's decision to tie cohesion to lethality (and make the latter universal...)
Who said they're "taking" many arrows (here I'm assuming you mean "struck by"? consider these possibilities--all but the last of which happen in Real Life:
-not every shot will hit the target: most will in fact do the opposite (in fact, I made sure of this...)
-not every shot which hits the target will be serious enough to cripple or kill it (especially with arrows). the arrow might put a hole in a hat, co through a sleeve, etc. I might hit a shield, or glance off a helmet.
-horses have been known to take multiple shots with arrows--that's why as late as the Hundred years war, you hear dozens of descriptions of "horses maddened by arrows". You're assuming only the horseman would be hit hard. Obviously horses can be taken out with one shot, but that would be a lucky shot.
-while we're on the subject of horsemen: he and his horse share the same hit point, so if anything horses are weaker in this mod then they should be historically...
-the horse archer is on a horse bobbing up and down, trying to hit a lone target also moving up and down (and I'm assuming at least 70 meters away).
Well, this isn't Rome 2: total war. This is not a mod for fast-paced combat. And again, 10 minutes is actually not bad--especially as by your own words, you completely destroyed the unit.
EDIT: for anyone else making a comment along these lines: don't just give me a useless comment. I will tear you to pieces, as I've done here. a good post on the subject should clarify what units there were, how many (and ideally the level of experience), what happened (that is, actions by the enemy and by yourself), where the battle was fought (and if it was part of a campaign), and so on. What I've devised with Quintus, z3n, and many others' help is quite complicated, and depends on many variables--as it should. We can't fix any chinks if we can't even make heads or tails about your complaint. Believe me, you're not doing us any favors if you post like this.
I think that you have underate the power of bow and arrow.It is bow and arrow alone that forge Mongolian empire.That is the light cavalry when I fight khiva as parthia.The arrow should be more powerful.A light cavelry is very vanerable to arrow.If they are not afraid of arrow.What is the difference between light and heavy cavalry?Please widen the gap between light and heavy cavelry ,between light and heavy infantry
Oh boy...
before I answer this, please do me a favor: answer my questions directly.
I think that you have underate the power of bow and arrow.It is bow and arrow alone that forge Mongolian empire.
you do realize this isn't the middle ages, right?
As to the Hellenistic time-period: the main bow types which have been found from this time-period (notably the yrzi bow) had at best only about half the poundage of the Mongolian bow (so no more than ~80 Pounds draw). This, combined with the lighter arrows used, will make for a weaker missile. I'm sorry, but I can't apply Mongol tech to the hellenistic timeperiod.
That is the light cavalry when I fight khiva as parthia.
that doesn't answer my question: what is the name of the unit? cavalry units could have been recruited with a veriety of stats...
though if it's what I suspect, then the unit has a shield, and in this case is well protected. That's a limitation of the engine, and not my problem. Just maneuver your men to the opposite side, or to the back of the enemy. EDIT: and get up-close.
The arrow should be more powerful.
see my comment above...repeating something won't make it the right idea.
A light cavelry is very vanerable to arrow.
which is why it only took you ten minutes to annihilate the unit....(hey, you said it, but you won't tell me more: and again, 10 minutes is fast. I saw Sargon of Akkad destroy a serious army "easily", and it took him only ~10 minutes).
And dude, we all know unarmored cavalry is going to be vulnerable: we're not stupid. Problem is, I can't judge the validity of your comment, if you won't answer the questions I posed:
-which horse archers (some suck, some don't: arrow type is important here)
-and which light cavalry? quite a few of the latter I know have 1 or 2 armor. (from a gameplay standpoint, there are hardly any units with 0 armor--certainly none for the cavalry). This is important to note, as this can affect things.
-was the enemy in loose formation for at least part of the time?
-did you surround the enemy or not?
-did the targeted unit have a shield (yes, this is a big deal)?
-how far were your men on average from the enemy?
-EDIT: oh, since we're dealing with Horse Archers: did you use the Cantabrian circle or not (again, it makes a big difference)
I'm not asking you to solve a calculus equation: I'm asking for a proper description of the battle you fought, which you claim took you 10 minutes to resolve. simply telling me you had 4 units of horse archers kill off "light cavalry" in 10 minutes isn't detailed enough for my purposes.
seriously, think about it: how can I do my job, if I don't even know what on Earth was going on in the battle? don't you want me to fix any mistakes (if they even exist)? or are you just gulling me?
.What is the difference between light and heavy cavalry?
most light cavalry have between 1 and 3 armor, and defence between 3 and 6. They tend to be used for skirmishing and harrassing, and have loose formations.
most heavy cavalry are between 7 and 17 armor, and defense between 6 and 9. Their job is to charge into other cavalry and into infantry (with caveats...)
that's assuming shields aren't involved. for all cavalry, this can be between 2 and 4...
of course, you'd know that if you actually read the stats for the units...
Please widen the gap between light and heavy cavelry ,between light and heavy infantry
dude, if you can't tell the difference between light and heavy units at this stage, I can't help you. I'm sorry.
EDIT: also, what version of EB II are you running? if you're using an old version, there was a bug in it that made cavalry overly strong v. missiles: this has since been fixed. If for some reason the fix isn't present in the new version, I can guarantee it'll be there in the next release.
Ok，maybe.I dont know how much is the casualty of the arrow at that time.Could you make the troop more easily to run or rout?They are not modern tropp.Willingness to casualty is more important than weapon does to increase the power of a troop.Normally,If a troop is willing to take half the casualty and they will stilll fight.They will make a formidable force. Ten percent of casualty will normally make a troop run away.Large part of cusualty will apear in the chasing.This could make the battle shorter.
Could you add a trophy system?You can win a fortune when you defeat a large force in enemy zone.It will help the nomad in their begining.In history,Nomad is pillaging and pillaging untill they become the conqueror of the district.Could you cancel the upkeep cost for nomad troop?I know that mongolian troop does not have payment .They even need to pay tribute to their rulers with their sheep or cow.Their income is the trophy.This should be the same as the early saka
Ok，maybe.I dont know how much is the casualty of the arrow at that time.
I see.
Could you make the troop more easily to run or rout?They are not modern tropp.Willingness to casualty is more important than weapon does to increase the power of a troop.Normally,If a troop is willing to take half the casualty and they will stilll fight.They will make a formidable force. Ten percent of casualty will normally make a troop run away.Large part of cusualty will apear in the chasing.This could make the battle shorter.
The morale system is actually the lowest known of any mod: most light cavalry are anywhere from 2-4 morale points, and discipline levels are also low. I simply can't make it lower: direct testing (and literally a couple dozen complaints) made it clear that any lower, and insta-routs (without any fighting) would become too common. It's a limitation of the engine.:shrug:
Could you add a trophy system?You can win a fortune when you defeat a large force in enemy zone.It will help the nomad in their begining.In history,Nomad is pillaging and pillaging untill they become the conqueror of the district.Could you cancel the upkeep cost for nomad troop?I know that mongolian troop does not have payment .They even need to pay tribute to their rulers with their sheep or cow.Their income is the trophy.This should be the same as the early saka
you mean the spoils of war script?
Gigantus: do we already have this? if not, would it be workable?
Gigantus
02-22-2016, 09:08
I would have to check, but I believe we have something like that in place - part of the financial script I think.
QuintusSertorius
02-22-2016, 15:02
There's already a spoils of war script. And there's a nomad pillage script (they get income from causing devastation).
We can't "cancel the upkeep of nomads", you can't vary upkeep by faction. Upkeep is the same for every faction who can recruit a unit, there is no way to change it for one faction or factions. Nomads already have lots of free upkeep slots in their nomadic government buildings, that's the means by which you get cheap armies.
I am quite disappointed with M2TW engine.You cant make a total historical things out of M2TW engine.It is too bad.I think you can make it better in Mount and blade.It has the supply line.It has conflict within and without,between the king and the noble.Please make a civil war system .The king can only control the development in his own capital in the east.They dont have the absolute power.Many city should be made self govern.Player cant held total power over them.They could only get their tribute and the army when they .I dont know where is it possible.I just know the parthia is very very unhistorical....
There is already a supply system in the traits.
Civil war/internal conflict is in progress, alongside factional resurgence which was implemented already for the upcoming release and helps represent this (2.2).
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
02-27-2016, 14:06
Just because I don't think it merits a whole new thread. The ambient settlements on the Twitter account....are they going to be used for the permanent forts? I ask only because, although I'm aware that those battles (the permanent forts) are supposed to 'approximate' field battles, the way the defending armies retreat and rally at a certain point on the map always looks odd to me. The addition of these ambient settlements would make that behaviour seem more....natural.
Adalingum
02-27-2016, 17:36
Just because I don't think it merits a whole new thread. The ambient settlements on the Twitter account....are they going to be used for the permanent forts? I ask only because, although I'm aware that those battles (the permanent forts) are supposed to 'approximate' field battles, the way the defending armies retreat and rally at a certain point on the map always looks odd to me. The addition of these ambient settlements would make that behaviour seem more....natural.
PSF's are out in the next version, the CAI can't handle them.
The next release will correct the crash when you select all units in custom and multiplayer battle setup as you can only play early as well hotseat that will be awesome
QuintusSertorius
03-24-2016, 11:02
The next release will correct the crash when you select all units in custom and multiplayer battle setup as you can only play early as well hotseat that will be awesome
We've corrected the Late-era crashing, but the All crash is un-fixable. It happens because there are too many units to display if you allow literally everything. I'm not sure what the limit is, but the current 260-something is too many.
There's no way around this; to avoid campaign crashes, every unit has to be on the ownership for every faction, just in case it somehow ends up passing into the ownership of a faction we might not have predicted.
The alternative is to have a second EDU just for multiplayer/custom battles, but that would still not be able to allow a faction to recruit every unit.
I think you should add a conscrption system .in ancient there is little standing army.All the army was made up of mercenary or conscription.we can make use of the mercenary system.general can summon a stack of army when it is needed.But it should be dismissed as soon as the danger is over or it will bankcrupt you and severely injure the local economy
I think the major drawback for EB2 and all total war seri is the map.There is only one city in one vast region.Does anyone have maps belong to this time range?especially for the ancient iran.I want to know how much iran is exploited at that time.thanks
QuintusSertorius
05-27-2016, 01:26
I think you should add a conscrption system .in ancient there is little standing army.All the army was made up of mercenary or conscription.we can make use of the mercenary system.general can summon a stack of army when it is needed.But it should be dismissed as soon as the danger is over or it will bankcrupt you and severely injure the local economy
Sorry, but this is a gross oversimplification that overlooks the pretty huge variations by region and culture as to how they arranged their military affairs.
Baphemous
06-02-2016, 01:21
I've noticed when arranging units into a column formation, the unit with a siege engine (ram, tower, etc.) is placed behind other units in the column. Any way to change this so that they're placed up front?
Gigantus
06-03-2016, 04:47
I've noticed when arranging units into a column formation, the unit with a siege engine (ram, tower, etc.) is placed behind other units in the column. Any way to change this so that they're placed up front?
Siege engines (ballista, onager) are always sorted to the back, ram and tower fall into the same category. You will have to give them their own formation.
At least initially Athens, Sparta and Rhodes have only fishing villages for ports, so they get no trade revenue and have no safe haven for fleets. Is this intended or just a bug?
QuintusSertorius
06-12-2016, 11:25
At least initially Athens, Sparta and Rhodes have only fishing villages for ports, so they get no trade revenue and have no safe haven for fleets. Is this intended or just a bug?
It's a bug fixed by the 2.2a patch (see the original post in the announcement thread).
Damn, I though I installed the patch. No bug reports from me then.
When will the discription for all regions be added? can you give the minor settlement some building .It is much more historical that there is a major city and some minor city in one region
Genghis Skhan
09-15-2016, 12:14
Not sure about the region descriptions. We don't really have anyone working on them ATM.
I think minor settlements act like trade resources now, and give a bonus to provincial income.
Just BTW, if you ever want to pitch in and help finish a region description, feel free. Some of them are fan-made. They do take a lot of work/research though.
Yes,I am willing to help.I am fond of classical geography.Although I know a lot about ancient chinese geography and each strategic point but I am afraid I dont know much about that in ancient middle east and mediterranean .I read Pliny.But it tell little things as our chinese book did .It just list how many colonia and municipality and nothing more.
by the way,I think lugdunum should be deleted.it does not exist at 272BC.nomadic region should have more rebel .Because there is alway rivalry tribes to the nomadic faction.Meanwhile in settled region.There should be less but more powerful rebel.Not just few hundred but full stack of rebel will roam a region which coincide with uprising in history
The AI is still too weak.I played parthia.I just push one faction and then the other to destruction.Other faction did not attack me at my back.There must be something wrong in this game.Do you know a mod named stainless steel.The AI is ten time stronger than the EBII.It almost drive me mad when I play a weak faction.That is neigh impossible.But in EBII there is nothing impossible.I think the troop recuited remain in the original region should be free.Because you know.In ancient greece.One soldier get 1 drachma a day in war time .They get nothing at peace.Not to mention nomadic troop dont have salary at all.They only have a share in the trophy.I hope this would increase the strength of AI faction.There is less than 200 soldier in asaak,Do you really think it is historical?The seleucid is so weak that parthia is not challenging at all
Genghis Skhan
09-17-2016, 17:54
Rebellions are kind of random, in game, overall. There's some editing possible regarding the strength of rebels spawned and the frequency, but it's not as flexible as you think/as we would like.
Stainless Steel is unquestionably a very well-known and fun mod, but the goal of EBII isn't to make a player's life hell like Stainless Steel and some of it's submods, AFAIK. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Regarding the AI not garrisoning it's cities properly, nothing we can do about that--the AI typically hates garrisoning cities. There's an upcoming garrison script for factional capitals soon in 2.2c, but otherwise, there isn't much we can do about it. Of course, we can't perfectly replicate history, we just try to do our best.
About the upkeep, it's not that simple, nor do I personally believe that troop payment should/would stop in peacetime. We can't represent everything perfectly, of course.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?144054-Regional-Descriptions-Help-the-EBII-Team
Here's the regional desc. thread. It's quite outdated, however. The middle-east and Mediterranean are fairly well represented already, but lots of areas in Europe/Eurasia need work. Gaul has quite a few places that need work, for eg.
For some sections, you'll need more than classic historical sources(eg. geography), just ftr. Strategy sections don't need sources, but in-game experience and knowledge of a province's function should be sufficient.
Then could you introduce another system 。If a city is besige,The army in the city will multiply automatically.Too few garrison made it quite boring and also unhistorical.The conscription is normal in ancient time.Though it is not a good soldier.But in desperation they can still cause quite great casualty to the enemy.this can effectively stop some faction like parthia easily storm large part of land.Also the player should disband them quick because it will have negative influence over the economy since so many citizen was enlisted.I think this is the only way to save some dinasaur like seleucid
Genghis Skhan
09-18-2016, 16:18
My last test run on the dev build shows the AS being the grey death, as was true in very early EBII.
The garrison script(what you're suggesting) will only be there for factional capitals, that's 29 cities, with 2 for AS(a special case since they had multiple capitals AFAIK). Since the team isn't very fond of garrison scripts, myself included, their introduction will be greatly limited. This is because many of us believe that too many garrison scripts only makes the game "artificially" difficult. It doesn't make the AI smarter, it just makes them have a sudden numerical advantage/bonus. There aren't any plans, atm, for extending that script for more cities, sorry.
The garrison script is also only for the AI--the player does not gain any benefit from them personally. I am not a fan of garrison scripts, but for factional capitals, it could make sense and isn't so bad as long as it's greatly limited in it's implementation.
Then how to solve the problem of a passive AI.It even does not attack me until i take more then half of its territory.
Genghis Skhan
09-19-2016, 14:57
About lugdunon, from one of our historians:
The area was inhabited since the Neolithic and a continuous Keltic settlement is attested since the 4th century BC.
Well, one thing z3n has said is that he was utterly disappointed with how the AI manages to defend itself--so in the next release, his CAI is actually set to defend as little as possible, and attack as much as possible. It's been a good balance, thus far, in testing. In my tests, the AI was quite aggressive, sending many stacks after me, and starting war with me at times.
I still think there is something wrong in this mod.I didnt notice AI hate to garison city in other mod.I think the training cost is too high.Principae is more than 1000 mina.That is too high.that is dozens of kgs of silver.Did your history advisor tell you how much 1500 mina worth in classical time?I can buy a city with it not just a cohort of principae.I am almost sure the problem is with the training cost.because I have never see a mod with a higher training cost than EBII.Please cut down the training cost to less than 100 mina.It is just training.Ok!
Genghis Skhan
09-19-2016, 15:13
I still think there is something wrong in this mod.I didnt notice AI hate to garison city in other mod.I think the training cost is too high.Principae is more than 1000 mina.That is too high.that is dozens of kgs of silver.Did your history advisor tell you how much 1500 mina worth in classical time?I can buy a city with it not just a cohort of principae.I am almost sure the problem is with the training cost.because I have never see a mod with a higher training cost than EBII.Please cut down the training cost to less than 100 mina.It is just training.Ok!
Well, I can easily say, that after having much discussion on the subject, the AI does not reliably garrison it's cities. It's a fact, you can't depend on the AI to do that sort of thing. You really can't depend on the AI for a lot of things, imo.
The unit costs aren't planned to be changed any time soon AFAIK. Personally, I don't think it's the training cost causing the problem at all here, and there's been no discussion regarding whether it's the culprit or not; you're the first to suggest that, AFAIK. All units costs are based upon an existing formula that takes stats into account. It's a pretty stringent system atm, and one that I, and many others, appreciate.
But the AI really sucks.What are you going to do about the AI.In my mind,even before destruction.seleucid can gather a force 1200000 strong to attack parthia.I dont even see 12 stacks of seleucid army before its annilation.It is both boring and and unhistorical！
I think you can make more reble settlement in the east of seleucid empire.in the game ,even the reble is stronger than the seleucid.It could give the seleucid a buffer zone.And in history,seleucid is center in syria.it had little control over iran.They are often ruled by petty kings or independent govenor.They are virtually independent before they are to decare that.This can halt the expansion of some faction like parthia.
Baphemous
10-18-2016, 16:09
I find its a toss up whether or not the Seleucids get devoured. The first couple campaigns I played they beasted everyone in the east, while other times I've seen them carved up between two or three other Asian factions. It probably comes down to the luck of the draw in the AI's early battles and whoever gets the momentum. Doesn't seem terribly imbalanced to me, as the same thing happens with the European and African factions.
Genghis Skhan
10-18-2016, 23:02
I find its a toss up whether or not the Seleucids get devoured. The first couple campaigns I played they beasted everyone in the east, while other times I've seen them carved up between two or three other Asian factions. It probably comes down to the luck of the draw in the AI's early battles and whoever gets the momentum. Doesn't seem terribly imbalanced to me, as the same thing happens with the European and African factions.
Thats been pretty much my experience. Sometimes the AS wanes, sometimes it rises. That's good--as every campaign should see different powers rising and falling.
Tactics Mayers
03-14-2017, 17:04
Can experience bonus from the likes of gymnasium and similar buildings have an increase of +4 instead of +1?
I felt the effects of having only 2 bronze chevrons to be quite worthless when compared to how the ones from EB1 were.
I hope that you guy can make some use of the holy war system not just delete it.When a big nation has fewer than 3 cities,the ai will call for the priest for righteous war to defend the kingdom.in this case,they can summon troops with no expense like the troops in the holy war.some faction are just too weak.There is nothing fun in the game
QuintusSertorius
04-27-2017, 15:35
I hope that you guy can make some use of the holy war system not just delete it.When a big nation has fewer than 3 cities,the ai will call for the priest for righteous war to defend the kingdom.in this case,they can summon troops with no expense like the troops in the holy war.some faction are just too weak.There is nothing fun in the game
There's nothing equivalent that is appropriate to model with that mechanic.
Gigantus
04-28-2017, 03:28
Holy war is an offensive mechanism\feature in M2TW, it isn't suitable for this.
in this case ,I think there is only one way to say this miserable AI.please lower all the training fee for all the troop.I can garanteed that nomad troop dont take any salary.The famous mongolian warrior ,they dont get any salary.they even need to pay tenth of their herds to their lord.It is this kind of miserable condition that make the nomadic tribe so ferocious.But they are also vulnerable because they had no armour.I dont think the noble cavalry take any salary.they had there fief,their serfs ,as we can see from mongolian.but all this people will get a large share of trophy.This can make do with a largest sum of corruptian as penalty.by the way ,can you guy told me the value of one mina in ancient time.I thought a mina is more than a sterling pound of silver.That is a fortune when the value of human life is very low.a hoplite earn 1 drachma is actually quite high.But they just cost 70 mina a year.that is the upkeep.I think the training cost vertually nothing,the state dont provide armour.just call them together learn discipline.Why will it be expensive?i think the training fee should range about from 10 mina to 100 mina. upkeep fee should be ranged from 0 to a few thousands because you should take logistics into account
QuintusSertorius
05-08-2017, 15:05
in this case ,I think there is only one way to say this miserable AI.please lower all the training fee for all the troop.I can garanteed that nomad troop dont take any salary.The famous mongolian warrior ,they dont get any salary.they even need to pay tenth of their herds to their lord.It is this kind of miserable condition that make the nomadic tribe so ferocious.But they are also vulnerable because they had no armour.I dont think the noble cavalry take any salary.they had there fief,their serfs ,as we can see from mongolian.but all this people will get a large share of trophy.This can make do with a largest sum of corruptian as penalty.by the way ,can you guy told me the value of one mina in ancient time.I thought a mina is more than a sterling pound of silver.That is a fortune when the value of human life is very low.a hoplite earn 1 drachma is actually quite high.But they just cost 70 mina a year.that is the upkeep.I think the training cost vertually nothing,the state dont provide armour.just call them together learn discipline.Why will it be expensive?i think the training fee should range about from 10 mina to 100 mina. upkeep fee should be ranged from 0 to a few thousands because you should take logistics into account
Short answer: no. All unit costs are based upon a consistent formula, applied to every unit. I'm not about to rewrite it, and recost every single unit, without good reason.
You're overlooking the mechanic that already exists for units who don't need paying: free upkeep. For which nomadic factions have a lot, and even more in winter (the traditional time of sending herds out to pasture).
Those unit in the original region that they were recruited shall be free of upkeep. because there is vertually no standing army in that time.Those troops get high salary at war time and nothing at peace time.if the troop go into enemy region.The upkeep will rise and moral ran low.the longer the troop stay in enemy region the upkeep cost will be higher.
QuintusSertorius
05-08-2017, 15:14
Those unit in the original region that they were recruited shall be free of upkeep. because there is vertually no standing army in that time.Those troops get high salary at war time and nothing at peace time.if the troop go into enemy region.The upkeep will rise and moral ran low.the longer the troop stay in enemy region the upkeep cost will be higher.
None of those things are possible in the M2TW engine. You can't change cost or upkeep once the campaign has started, and you can only set one global figure for all places and all times.
Nor does the engine reflect morale as a result of being paid.
No ,I mean just lower the price for all unit.The price has been set too high,otherwise you can proof me wrong with the historical value of mina.I think this will help the AI a lot.since all those mod I had played with low training fee.The AI are very much ferocious
QuintusSertorius
05-08-2017, 15:53
No ,I mean just lower the price for all unit.The price has been set too high,otherwise you can proof me wrong with the historical value of mina.I think this will help the AI a lot.since all those mod I had played with low training fee.The AI are very much ferocious
Historical value when and where? Based on what exchange rate of gold to silver?
We have only one currency for the entire game, it's a concession to the way the engine was designed. The AI doesn't need "help" it gets both scripted financial assistance and big construction discounts.
then why did AI so mild?We want the AI in the EBI !Oh that AI is gorgeous.I have never find a better AI that EBI.When I push into mesopotamia.The ptolemais will ally with seleucid to push me back.I can play it all day long.I play EBII for an hour that I find it boring and dull
QuintusSertorius
05-09-2017, 09:41
then why did AI so mild?We want the AI in the EBI !Oh that AI is gorgeous.I have never find a better AI that EBI.When I push into mesopotamia.The ptolemais will ally with seleucid to push me back.I can play it all day long.I play EBII for an hour that I find it boring and dull
The AI in EB1 was dumb. It was just hyper-aggressive, total war all the time. That isn't gorgeous, it was tedious. Add to that the ridiculous money script whereby they basically had unlimited money and could spam elites turn after turn, and that make most of the game a chore.
EB1 is not the standard we're trying to emulate with EBII.
but,it is a game ,though historical ,not a book.the old power allied with their former enemy to fight a rising power is common in history,And it made it funny.I play parthia.Only me declare war on other.No one faction declare war on me.They dont stand a chance when I declare a war.Can you call.this historical?it is boring!I think a trait in EBI can be introduce.When a city turn into rebel,it can be rebel away to another faction.and their will be war between them.The AI should be learn to take their chance.They can stab player in the back,when their hand are tied up elsewhere
CumPizdrul
07-05-2017, 11:14
I suggest about Romans :
1) to evidence (event) the difference between Senatus et Principatus atque Dominatus, in 3 different ages and consequent civil wars and even the " title " change from " faction leader " to " princeps " to " imperator". It would be interesting to focus on the " religious" qualifications ...pontifex...divus....augustus....associated to the character (e.g. the heir in the Principatus should have the " principis iuventutis" )
2) to restore the Senatus missions until the changeling of the State form and to introduce the concept of "foederatus" to promote this old fashioned habit which was very recurring.
3) to introduce the possibility to be elected ( quaestor, praetor...) even if the candidate is far away from Rome. Provided that he is winning battles against enemies or he accomplished a mission.
4) to introduce simple Roman Archers at the beginning ; then Roman Archers Auxilia and Roman Lancers Auxilia even in Rome and in some Provinciae. To reform Romans' equites, they remain the same even after marian reform, and even the Roman General Bodyguard, it remain the same.
5) for whole game : to introduce the possibility to train soldiers even if my army is far away from the region in which they usually got trained. I mean, if I am playing with Romans, and I am doing a campaign Vs Armenians, how I could finish it ? In 3-4 battles I will loose 40%-50% of my soldiers, so I should get back to Italy to re-train them and then move again in Armenia or...I should fill my army with mercenaries. It is very uncomfortable, I think.
QuintusSertorius
07-05-2017, 11:57
I suggest about Romans :
1) to evidence (event) the difference between Senatus et Principatus atque Dominatus, in 3 different ages and consequent civil wars and even the " title " change from " faction leader " to " princeps " to " imperator". It would be interesting to focus on the " religious" qualifications ...pontifex...divus....augustus....associated to the character (e.g. the heir in the Principatus should have the " principis iuventutis" )
You can't change titles in-game. They're all set once and for the whole duration in the expanded.txt.
2) to restore the Senatus missions until the changeling of the State form and to introduce the concept of "foederatus" to promote this old fashioned habit which was very recurring.
We're not going to do that. They're a gamey and ahistorical feature.
3) to introduce the possibility to be elected ( quaestor, praetor...) even if the candidate is far away from Rome. Provided that he is winning battles against enemies or he accomplished a mission.
We're not doing that either, it's done that way on purpose. Get your FMs back to Rome, or don't receive imperium. They already have a very generous pro-magisterial period after an election to operate with.
4) to introduce simple Roman Archers at the beginning ; then Roman Archers Auxilia and Roman Lancers Auxilia even in Rome and in some Provinciae. To reform Romans' equites, they remain the same even after marian reform, and even the Roman General Bodyguard, it remain the same.
No, I'm afraid not. The javelin was the missile weapon of the Italian peninsular. The only new allied missile unit will be an Italic javelineer. You need to look to other cultures for missiles.
Marian Equites weren't any different from the Polybian ones, that's why they don't change.
5) for whole game : to introduce the possibility to train soldiers even if my army is far away from the region in which they usually got trained. I mean, if I am playing with Romans, and I am doing a campaign Vs Armenians, how I could finish it ? In 3-4 battles I will loose 40%-50% of my soldiers, so I should get back to Italy to re-train them and then move again in Armenia or...I should fill my army with mercenaries. It is very uncomfortable, I think.
Again, not going to happen. Roman recruitment is the way it is by design. If you want Romans out in the provinces, you need to keep shipping out reinforcements to merge with your armies to make up losses.
In the Marian era, you can recruit local equivalents/supports through the Provinciae government. Half your force should be allied anyway.
CumPizdrul
07-06-2017, 14:41
You can't change titles in-game. They're all set once and for the whole duration in the expanded.txt.
We're not going to do that. They're a gamey and ahistorical feature.
We're not doing that either, it's done that way on purpose. Get your FMs back to Rome, or don't receive imperium. They already have a very generous pro-magisterial period after an election to operate with.
No, I'm afraid not. The javelin was the missile weapon of the Italian peninsular. The only new allied missile unit will be an Italic javelineer. You need to look to other cultures for missiles.
Marian Equites weren't any different from the Polybian ones, that's why they don't change.
Again, not going to happen. Roman recruitment is the way it is by design. If you want Romans out in the provinces, you need to keep shipping out reinforcements to merge with your armies to make up losses.
In the Marian era, you can recruit local equivalents/supports through the Provinciae government. Half your force should be allied anyway.
Thank you . But actually, I am quite sure that Romans got archers ( Sagittarii ) both pofessional and mercenary ones. In fact they had, in the early Res Publica period, Kretan Archers as auxilia and since 80 BC (more less) professional archers troops (obviously from Sirya or Thracia). You can easily see them carved in the " Trajanus Column", in Rome, too.
About the rest, I am not able with scripts and codes, so I don't understand the difficulty to change features and/or parts of the config.
However, to rule a whole region, if each single governor must get back to Rome often, in order to receive the imperium or the authority to rule / make war could bring many problems when the empire is big, just to say.
Anyway thank you for everything you all doing for this mod!!
QuintusSertorius
07-06-2017, 15:01
Yes, and that was a very real problem the Romans struggled with. Elections were in Rome, regardless of how distant the province.
You can recruit Kretans and other archers in the Provinciae government after the Marian reform. You can also recruit them from the Civitas Libera government and Allied Governments for that matter.
CumPizdrul
07-09-2017, 16:39
Yes, and that was a very real problem the Romans struggled with. Elections were in Rome, regardless of how distant the province.
You can recruit Kretans and other archers in the Provinciae government after the Marian reform. You can also recruit them from the Civitas Libera government and Allied Governments for that matter.
Of course it was a problem. But in this game, at a certain point, you will have Rome full of people. I mean, the office maybe lasts a little few. Anyway I think it is not a big deal.
About archers, I was meaning that of course soldiers were from Syria or other countries, but they were permanent units in the roman army, they were not mercenaries ; in fact they were wearing the roman's armour in the late period while almost anything in the early one.
QuintusSertorius
07-10-2017, 12:27
Of course it was a problem. But in this game, at a certain point, you will have Rome full of people. I mean, the office maybe lasts a little few. Anyway I think it is not a big deal.
About archers, I was meaning that of course soldiers were from Syria or other countries, but they were permanent units in the roman army, they were not mercenaries ; in fact they were wearing the roman's armour in the late period while almost anything in the early one.
And you can recruit them with a Provinciae in Syria after the Marian reform.
Gurkhal2
07-11-2017, 10:03
Here's something that I've been thinking about. That is if it would be possible for the Koine faction to re-establish Sparta's old system with the oppression of the helots and so starting to boost the possible creation or Spartiate hoplites? I don't recall Sparta ever giving up on that idea while they had independence and so I would think that if they were more successful, they would have brought it back to life.
Either through a reform or through being allowed to build some "building" in Sparta itself.
Here's something that I've been thinking about. That is if it would be possible for the Koine faction to re-establish Sparta's old system with the oppression of the helots and so starting to boost the possible creation or Spartiate hoplites? I don't recall Sparta ever giving up on that idea while they had independence and so I would think that if they were more successful, they would have brought it back to life.
Either through a reform or through being allowed to build some "building" in Sparta itself.
Hello Gurkhal2, welcome to the .Org and to EB ~:wave: .
If I recall correctly, in 272 BC Sparta still controlled its own helot population in Laconia, so no reform would be required. It was just the Messanian helots that had been liberated. No doubt the Spartans would have liked to reenslave Messenia, but I am not sure it would have mattered hugely. Spartan hoplites were always few in number.
Gurkhal2
07-11-2017, 15:58
EDITED: Removed the whole extended suggestion for various reasons.
QuintusSertorius
07-11-2017, 20:57
Here's something that I've been thinking about. That is if it would be possible for the Koine faction to re-establish Sparta's old system with the oppression of the helots and so starting to boost the possible creation or Spartiate hoplites? I don't recall Sparta ever giving up on that idea while they had independence and so I would think that if they were more successful, they would have brought it back to life.
Either through a reform or through being allowed to build some "building" in Sparta itself.
Not directly related, but KH does have an Agiad reform for Sparta, caused by changing land ownership. Ie building a big enough farm.
Gurkhal2
07-11-2017, 21:09
Not directly related, but KH does have an Agiad reform for Sparta, caused by changing land ownership. Ie building a big enough farm.
That's sweet to hear about! I'll try to get this in my campaign and see how it is. Thanks for the info!
athanaric
07-20-2017, 17:22
Some feedback on 2.2r:
Posted this on TWC before, but...
1) Why do the Suebi faction name and various titles have Umlauts in them? What are they based on - is it an official transcription?
Do they indicate pronunciation - so the second syllable in "Swëböz" is supposed to be pronounced like in "Öztürk"?
If however they are supposed to be stress or length markers, may I just point out that they are a very unfortunate choice (especially on isolated, single vowels), and accents etc. would be much more appropriate for that.
2) Are there plans to replace the remaining RTW Vanilla 2d graphics with custom-made ones or paintings/photographs? If the latter, I could help out with a few.
then why did AI so mild?We want the AI in the EBI !Oh that AI is gorgeous.I have never find a better AI that EBI.When I push into mesopotamia.The ptolemais will ally with seleucid to push me back.I can play it all day long.I play EBII for an hour that I find it boring and dullDude, the AI in EBI was by far the worst and most tedious part of the mod, and was what made me completely give up on it (after playing it far too much anyway). And I played every faction in campaign, except the Seleukids.
QuintusSertorius
07-21-2017, 09:50
Some feedback on 2.2r:
Posted this on TWC before, but...
1) Why do the Suebi faction name and various titles have Umlauts in them? What are they based on - is it an official transcription?
Do they indicate pronunciation - so the second syllable in "Swëböz" is supposed to be pronounced like in "Öztürk"?
If however they are supposed to be stress or length markers, may I just point out that they are a very unfortunate choice (especially on isolated, single vowels), and accents etc. would be much more appropriate for that.
I've no idea, I'd have to ask our Germanic linguists.
2) Are there plans to replace the remaining RTW Vanilla 2d graphics with custom-made ones or paintings/photographs? If the latter, I could help out with a few.
No plans, but if you have ideas and the skills, by all means. If you're referring to ancillary portraits, we've changed loads of them in 2.3, though you can't see it in 2.2r.
Regardless, more 2D artists are always welcome.
athanaric
07-21-2017, 12:53
I've no idea, I'd have to ask our Germanic linguists.Please do, unless one of them gets here first.
No plans, but if you have ideas and the skills, by all means. If you're referring to ancillary portraits, we've changed loads of them in 2.3, though you can't see it in 2.2r.
Regardless, more 2D artists are always welcome.
I'm mainly referring to building info pictures, both the symbols in the city UI and the detailed "unit card" of each building. Right now, they are a hodgepodge of pictures of different styles from different sources, with some being photographs (with or without filters), some being original EB art, some paintings, and some being directly taken from RTW and M2TW. In the interest of creating a more immersive atmosphere and giving the mod a more uniform look, I think that straightening these out would be a good idea. Ideally, all vanilla TW art would be replaced, especially the stuff from RTW which, while not necessarily bad for its time, looks bland and lifeless.
Personally, I like the photos best (a good example are the province info pics). That's where I could help out most easily, by providing you with royalty free ones for use in the mod specifically (and cropping or formatting (etc.) them if necessary).
Example (taken in Greece, no less. Might be suitable for a farming tier):
19737
Not sure I have the skill or time to help with creating 2d art unfortunately, certainly not paintings or CG models.
Please do, unless one of them gets here first.
I'm mainly referring to building info pictures, both the symbols in the city UI and the detailed "unit card" of each building. Right now, they are a hodgepodge of pictures of different styles from different sources, with some being photographs (with or without filters), some being original EB art, some paintings, and some being directly taken from RTW and M2TW. In the interest of creating a more immersive atmosphere and giving the mod a more uniform look, I think that straightening these out would be a good idea. Ideally, all vanilla TW art would be replaced, especially the stuff from RTW which, while not necessarily bad for its time, looks bland and lifeless.
Personally, I like the photos best (a good example are the province info pics). That's where I could help out most easily, by providing you with royalty free ones for use in the mod specifically (and cropping or formatting (etc.) them if necessary).
Example (taken in Greece, no less. Might be suitable for a farming tier):
19737
Not sure I have the skill or time to help with creating 2d art unfortunately, certainly not paintings or CG models.
This is my area, so I'll just note that the preferred art-style is "painting". Provinces are a completely different animal since they are geographic in nature, and thus photos are the best way to represent them. But in all other cases (buildings and events) the intent is to use artwork. In some cases (ports and farms in particular) we do rely on vanilla RTW, but even there, there's a conscious effort to keep the styles similar across the whole range of building levels. So if you have an RTW graphic at L1, they'll be used all the way through to L5 (or whatever the terminating level. And they will be different by culture.
So I take exception to the "hodgepodge" accusation, because there isn't just a random distribution of pictures and art sprinkled everywhere. There is a theme, and we're slowly moving toward the ultimate goal, but within building types the sequences are consistent and yet still different for every culture.
Gigantus
07-23-2017, 19:25
There is software around (I have dabbled with FotoSketcher (http://fotosketcher.com/)) that does reasonable converting from photos to 'art' - can that be helpful?'
3 minute process with a default setting - can obviously be refined:
https://image.ibb.co/msQNaQ/org.png...https://image.ibb.co/iqP4pk/paint.png
athanaric
07-23-2017, 19:46
^ Good idea.
This is my area, so I'll just note that the preferred art-style is "painting". Provinces are a completely different animal since they are geographic in nature, and thus photos are the best way to represent them. But in all other cases (buildings and events) the intent is to use artwork. In some cases (ports and farms in particular) we do rely on vanilla RTW, but even there, there's a conscious effort to keep the styles similar across the whole range of building levels. So if you have an RTW graphic at L1, they'll be used all the way through to L5 (or whatever the terminating level. And they will be different by culture.I see. Makes sense.
So I take exception to the "hodgepodge" accusation, because there isn't just a random distribution of pictures and art sprinkled everywhere. There is a theme, and we're slowly moving toward the ultimate goal, but within building types the sequences are consistent and yet still different for every culture.It wasn't meant in a denigrating way. But surely, you can see what I mean - a consistent art style would be preferable (even though difficult to achieve considering how many different individuals of different professional and cultural backgrounds are working on this mod), in fact, IMHO, it should be one of the primary goals for any total conversion mod, such as this one.
It wasn't meant in a denigrating way. But surely, you can see what I mean - a consistent art style would be preferable (even though difficult to achieve considering how many different individuals of different professional and cultural backgrounds are working on this mod), in fact, IMHO, it should be one of the primary goals for any total conversion mod, such as this one.
And that was my point, it IS a primary goal. If you could compare the 2.0 vs 2.2 versions of EB2, you'd see we made MASSIVE steps in that direction, and it remains an ongoing activity. Take a look at the small icons and you'll see the same thing. A steady move toward a common style.
Gurkhal2
10-01-2017, 17:55
I've got to see the Spartan land reform now and it was, ok I suppose. Although i still think that there should have been a quest for the Koine faction in regards to the helots, and if more quests could also be done I'd love that too. :) But then again I'm a sucker for quests and stuff in this mod.
QuintusSertorius
10-02-2017, 00:02
I've got to see the Spartan land reform now and it was, ok I suppose. Although i still think that there should have been a quest for the Koine faction in regards to the helots, and if more quests could also be done I'd love that too. :) But then again I'm a sucker for quests and stuff in this mod.
In 2.3 both Epeiros and Ptolemaioi have "missions" relating to installing their own favoured candidate in Sparte. Not to do with the helots, though, rather exiled kinglets.
Gurkhal2
10-02-2017, 15:21
In 2.3 both Epeiros and Ptolemaioi have "missions" relating to installing their own favoured candidate in Sparte. Not to do with the helots, though, rather exiled kinglets.
Like I said I love quests/missions in general as it adds a lot to the immersion in my experience. Will definietly try out Epeiros and the Ptolemaioi in 2.3. I'm big Philhellene in addition to a lover ot quests/missions so that should be good. :)
mephiston
10-11-2017, 22:53
Hello all! :yes:
Some (probably crazy) suggestions.
Could be a good idea to implement another trait in the (selfish,unselfish/optimistic,pessimistic) group? I'm thinking about the newly added lazy/dutiful, maybe, which are relative to the personality rather than related to lifestile or character development... This will also restore the balance in numbers with the (sharp,dull/charismatic,uncharismatic/vigorous,languorous) group.
I don't know if this already comes into play, but is it possible to influence the acquisition of a certain trait depending on the region (and not only the settlement)? I am referring for example to something like the "Under the Weather": an increased chance in alpine regions during winter, and maybe in desert regions during summer could be interesting IMO!
Talking about loyalty, could be a "short reign penalty" possible? Looking at e.g. Seleucid history we can see how each basileus had to struggle against potential claimants to the throne; and in general the years after the death of a basileus were really chaotic! So I was thinking about a decrease in loyalty right after the death of a faction leader. Maybe only for some factions, though, and with some conditions related to the number of controlled territories.
I haven't played the Ptolemaioi (waiting for the 2.3) and I don't have a copy of the game at hand for the moment, so I can't check; but are there some unique bonuses related to the flooding of the Nile? Maybe a boost to agriculture higher than normal.
Probably something else is going to come to my mind in the next days, but for now this is it. ~:)
mephiston
10-22-2017, 16:17
Okay, now I delved deep into the 2.3 files and I noticed the Seleukid pretender revolt script, along with some other really interesting stuff. I suppose my previous suggestions aren't valid anymore. ~:)
I really hope that you can add more reble units from outside the map.you can make mauryan empire reble invade taxila.You can certainly.make reble for kushan empire and han empire and the xiongnu.They all enter the map in this time frame.If you dont want to waste faction on them.Its fine.you can let them be rebel army and mercenary.Please do make units for those empires.It will add more variety to the game and make it more historical.many units in the game looks acturally the same.The diffenrence may be their weaponsIt will get bored if the units that cant change like the old eb1
QuintusSertorius
10-30-2017, 10:03
We have lots more regional units to add, especially for the eastern steppe.
Christianus
10-31-2017, 10:39
Hello,
Have been a fan, and closely following the EB project since the earliest stages of EB I. Back in those day early 2000’s, It was Europa Barbarorum and te Rome Total Tealism project for all the money». Still playing RTR 6.0 now and then.
Anyhow, the very high early ambitions of the EB team has more than lived up to every expectation (of I assume) all developers and fans. Its been a fantastic journey this far, at least for me as a fan. Been checking the forum several times every week since the beginning.
Posts of technical assistance, tips, and not to mention all the new content created by the developers, contains an enormous amount of work from the people willing to labour for It.
This project is all about history. I think It would be very pleasurable to see If one could write a short history of the project Itself in a credits sene one the game is opened. Who has worked from when to when on the project, when positions in the administration of the project has changed etc.
Will there be of the units of eastern asian.Will the units change as time went by like the old days EB1
QuintusSertorius
11-07-2017, 14:54
Hello,
Have been a fan, and closely following the EB project since the earliest stages of EB I. Back in those day early 2000’s, It was Europa Barbarorum and te Rome Total Tealism project for all the money». Still playing RTR 6.0 now and then.
Anyhow, the very high early ambitions of the EB team has more than lived up to every expectation (of I assume) all developers and fans. Its been a fantastic journey this far, at least for me as a fan. Been checking the forum several times every week since the beginning.
Posts of technical assistance, tips, and not to mention all the new content created by the developers, contains an enormous amount of work from the people willing to labour for It.
This project is all about history. I think It would be very pleasurable to see If one could write a short history of the project Itself in a credits sene one the game is opened. Who has worked from when to when on the project, when positions in the administration of the project has changed etc.
That would take some doing, but I'll suggest it to the team. Someone might take up the challenge.
Will there be of the units of eastern asian.Will the units change as time went by like the old days EB1
There are limits to units from beyond the end of the map. There are more eastern steppe regional units to come.
Units do change over time, but a global "all units change on this date" mechanic like EB1 had makes no sense at all.
Having played quite abit as Pergamon and Makedon I have found the pikes to be quite underpowered. If given an ideal position in a chokepoint and with a thick unit they only tend to get around 30 kills for me when fighting generic spear-levy units. The main problem is their damage, they can usualy hold enemies back for quite some time but they get barely any kills in the process. I understand the idea is to use them with the hammer and anvil tactic but they are just so useless at killing stuff you might aswell have levy hoplites. I have seen skirmishing cavalry do full frontal charges into prepared pike phalanxes and not taken a single casualty.
Also sometimes when the AI targets something behind the pike unit they can just pull trough the entire pike phalanx and end up behind them. This is particulary annoying in siege defences where the enemy just runs trough my pike blocks while only taking 3-10 casualties.
Other than this I think the game seems balanced. I really enjoyed playing as Aruernoi. But as a pike fanboy I hope you will buff pikes in future versions. They dont need to be slaughter machines but if someone does a frontal charge (particulary cavalry) I think they should atleast take some casualties.
This is from my experience anyway, keep up the good work this mod is amazing!
I just finished a H:H Epeiros 150 turn campaign. I remember this project from 10 years ago, and I am very pleased to see that it is still so much alive. Truly incredible how much this project has grown over the years. To all those who have contributed: hats off for your dedication.
Here are a few of my points that I think could be improved.
* Enemy generals die too quickly. This was also a problem back in the days with R:TW. I think this could be solved by giving the AI general +3-5 hitpoints extra. This would counter his suicidal tendencies.
* Macedons had 1 town left (Pella). Still, each turn they could produce 1 unit. Eventually they had 2,5 full stacks. This is not realistic. I think it would be more appropriate to script that when a AI town is attacked, levies are mobilized (i.e. the AI can go in red with buying troops). But not under normal conditions. The way it is now, the Macedon AI army is growing to unrealistic sizes.
* The M2:TW recruitment engine is so much better than R:TW. But I had a feeling that too much troops were produced overall. There are way more troops than money can buy. If the troops were more scarce, the campaign would be a bit more realistic and maybe the AI would invest more in city upgrades. Levi mobilizations during attack would also make the cities more difficult to conquer. I would go for 2-3x longer replenishment times - at least.
* AI doesn't upgrade its towns. This could be scripted (?), disregarding the finances. I remember in the days of EB, the AI got +5k or +10k each turn. But the AI just wastes it on troops. If the script could make sure that in at least 30% of AI towns something was build (and if not, just start building - disregarding financial resources), this would make the AI more realistic and sufficient later in the game.
* Hastati have some strange cards (pikes?), while they are depicted with a gladius in the description.
QuintusSertorius
02-15-2018, 00:53
Having played quite abit as Pergamon and Makedon I have found the pikes to be quite underpowered. If given an ideal position in a chokepoint and with a thick unit they only tend to get around 30 kills for me when fighting generic spear-levy units. The main problem is their damage, they can usualy hold enemies back for quite some time but they get barely any kills in the process. I understand the idea is to use them with the hammer and anvil tactic but they are just so useless at killing stuff you might aswell have levy hoplites. I have seen skirmishing cavalry do full frontal charges into prepared pike phalanxes and not taken a single casualty.
Also sometimes when the AI targets something behind the pike unit they can just pull trough the entire pike phalanx and end up behind them. This is particulary annoying in siege defences where the enemy just runs trough my pike blocks while only taking 3-10 casualties.
Other than this I think the game seems balanced. I really enjoyed playing as Aruernoi. But as a pike fanboy I hope you will buff pikes in future versions. They dont need to be slaughter machines but if someone does a frontal charge (particulary cavalry) I think they should atleast take some casualties.
This is from my experience anyway, keep up the good work this mod is amazing!
Pikes are still a work in progress; there have been some recent changes in the development build, but they haven't been comprehensively play-tested yet. It's difficult to get them to do what we want them to do, and avoid them being overpowered like in EB1.
I just finished a H:H Epeiros 150 turn campaign. I remember this project from 10 years ago, and I am very pleased to see that it is still so much alive. Truly incredible how much this project has grown over the years. To all those who have contributed: hats off for your dedication.
Here are a few of my points that I think could be improved.
* Enemy generals die too quickly. This was also a problem back in the days with R:TW. I think this could be solved by giving the AI general +3-5 hitpoints extra. This would counter his suicidal tendencies.
AI generals do get more hit points at the higher levels of the AIGeneral trait.
* Macedons had 1 town left (Pella). Still, each turn they could produce 1 unit. Eventually they had 2,5 full stacks. This is not realistic. I think it would be more appropriate to script that when a AI town is attacked, levies are mobilized (i.e. the AI can go in red with buying troops). But not under normal conditions. The way it is now, the Macedon AI army is growing to unrealistic sizes.
There's already just such a script for factional capitals (only, plus a handful of "Rebel capitals"). We are categorically not going to extend this to every settlement, that just makes sieges a tedious slog.
The AI can't go into the red, the finance script clears all debt - because if we don't they go bankrupt then passive. But the corollary of that script is that they also can't build up large surpluses, anything over 30k gets clawed back.
* The M2:TW recruitment engine is so much better than R:TW. But I had a feeling that too much troops were produced overall. There are way more troops than money can buy. If the troops were more scarce, the campaign would be a bit more realistic and maybe the AI would invest more in city upgrades. Levi mobilizations during attack would also make the cities more difficult to conquer. I would go for 2-3x longer replenishment times - at least.
The only thing the AI wants to do is recruit units (and build things that allow them to recruit units). That's a hardcoded behaviour that overrides everything else that influences the AI. In earlier versions, the disparity between number of settlements and number of stacks was much worse.
As above, we already have a selective and limited application garrison script, it won't be extended beyond that. The balance is skewed in the direction we'd prefer the gameplay to go - that you win a province by a field battle, not by a hard siege. We don't want to make settlements any more difficult to conquer, the difficulty should be coming from winning a battle in the province first (from those 2.5 stacks, for example).
Making units more scarce won't make the AI build things instead.
* AI doesn't upgrade its towns. This could be scripted (?), disregarding the finances. I remember in the days of EB, the AI got +5k or +10k each turn. But the AI just wastes it on troops. If the script could make sure that in at least 30% of AI towns something was build (and if not, just start building - disregarding financial resources), this would make the AI more realistic and sufficient later in the game.
As above, the AI likes to recruit above all things. Giving them lots of money wouldn't result in construction, just more recruitment. That's why the finance script only gives a lump sum in spring, when recruitment slots for most governments are low (winter has lots of slots - it was the traditional recruiting time).
We've given the AI huge construction discounts through the AIGovernor trait, which it does use. Again their primary interest is in troop-producing buildings, but they do build infrastructure as well.
Otherwise, the level of specificity you're talking about is impossible. You can't measure "a proportion of their towns" without a huge script that checks every settlement, every turn, to see who owns it. You can't script construction behaviour.
On a more general point, EB1 is neither suggestive nor indicative of what we're trying to achieve with EBII, least of all in the AI space.
Elmetiacos
05-01-2018, 00:47
I've no idea, I'd have to ask our Germanic linguists.
I think this is a mistake, it should be a circumflex - Swêbôz, which is how it appears in the introductory text.
Gurkhal2
06-26-2018, 16:56
Here's an idea that I've been thinking about. Its to add spouses as retainers to male characters. Right now its s total sausag feast with women in the ruling family being total non-entities. I realize that this is an unfortunate effect of how the game's hardcoded but I feel that maybe that could be done something with in order to bring some more life into that part of the system by making spouses retainers that, should the spouse die in the family tree, the retainer is removed from the male character.
You probably wonder, what's that adding to the game? I would say immersion and perhaps less sausage feast over all as well as more color to the characters. For example imagine that a Socialite Wife or a Soldier's Daughter could add some stuff.
Its not prioritized thing but I thought I would mention it and see what you think of it.
The office of Princeps Senatus should be added for the Romans. It was bestowed for life to the oldest living censor, then (after 209 BC) to the most influential former censor. It could give influence boost. It was not given after an election though (by the censors when they drew the list of senators).
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153700-Re-working-EBII-Caucasian-Units?p=2053794604#post2053794604
why are there so few types of ships ? is it possible to make it possible for the Hellenistic faction to marry on mtw2.it is a pity that the Greeks can not build new policies-colonies .will there be Syracuse and Massala hoplites?
will there be Syracuse and Massala hoplites?it is a pity that the Greeks can not build new policies-colonies.why are there so few types of ships ? is it possible to make it possible for the Hellenistic faction to marry on mtw2
QuintusSertorius
08-04-2020, 15:19
why are there so few types of ships ? is it possible to make it possible for the Hellenistic faction to marry on mtw2.it is a pity that the Greeks can not build new policies-colonies .will there be Syracuse and Massala hoplites?
There are only 498 unit slots available, and fleets can only engage in autocalculated battles on the campaign map. Thus using lots of slots for them is a waste of unit slots.
ptolemaiosVI
01-06-2021, 12:45
I had an idea regarding the situation of Macedon/ Epirus. Would it be possible for the player to establish some form of the Hellenic League/ League of Corinth like Demetrius or Antigonos III if he controls certain settlements (Sparta/ Corinth / Athens / Demetrias? maybe) and has enough influence or establishes democratic governments in them. The leader (Pyrrhus/ Antigonus Gonatas) would have to spend a turn in Corinth and gain a trait (mainly for RP purpose) such as: Hegemon tes ton Hellenon Symmachias (koinon or synedrion maybe? instead of symmachia) and get an influence increase. If the leader dies and nobody has the trait, maybe a scripted chance of rebellion, similar to the Akitu event
St. Drew
01-07-2021, 03:32
Hi there. Ive been a huge fan since EB1 and have recently given EB2 a shot since I have obtained a more powerful computer. I enjoyed the time I had with it immensely but found some bugs to be a little insurmountable. I am using a Macbook Pro that can more than handle the game but there seems to be a bug that causes CTD's on battle maps involving settlements. I really enjoyed sieges and sallies so I deleted the game for now and will attempt to reinstall to see if there was a mistake on my end, though it seems that this is a common problem. So my questions/suggestions are: 1) Will any future releases continue to be made available to Mac users (using Steam MTW2), and 2) Is it possible that this issue will be fixed at all? Thank You!
hot_gril
03-07-2021, 19:56
They nerfed slingers a lot in EB2. In EB1, they were insanely powerful and also, for cheap slingers vs cheap archers, longer-ranged than archers. An army of EB1 slingers could defeat anything, so I had to stop myself from using them.
I think slingers still penetrate armor better than archers do in EB2, but the effect isn't as dramatic.
hot_gril
03-07-2021, 21:59
The AI in EB1 was dumb. It was just hyper-aggressive, total war all the time. That isn't gorgeous, it was tedious. Add to that the ridiculous money script whereby they basically had unlimited money and could spam elites turn after turn, and that make most of the game a chore.
EB1 is not the standard we're trying to emulate with EBII.
Years later, I came here to say I agree. The EBI AI was annoying. The Seleucid Empire was spamming full armies of phalanxes at me, many of them elite, until I captured every last city of theirs. Finally elite units are rare in EBII like they should be.
Also I find the unit balance in EBII way better. Phalanxes in EBI were OP. Even if you hit them directly in the back or side, they'd take minimal losses then turn instantly and start slaughtering you. They never routed either. Slingers in EBI were somehow a lot more powerful than archers and much cheaper. EBI skirmishers in general were hard to chase down with cavalry because you couldn't charge anything in skirmish mode, and there was little bonus to attacking fleeing units from the rear, so even the AI could make their skirmishers hard for me to destroy with cavalry. All of that was fixed in EBII. It's a vastly better and more realistic game.
Heavenlyhorses
06-13-2021, 18:09
Also I'm sure you have gotten this before, but I Would like to request if the Han Dynasty could be added, (perhaps just for custom battles). The actions of the Han as you know opened the Silk Road, and surely we can imagine that the defenders of Da Yuan (Alexandria Eschate) were Hellenized at the time) Maybe even a special historic battle could be made for this. I heard that there were four faction slots left.
Maybe if the units were made, there would not even need to be a campaign faction, just that hundreds/thousands of soldiers could come and attack the eastern parts of the map. But then again Han faction would still be great for custom battles.
Also if City architecture was an issue I don't think it would be that much a problem as models were already made by other mods, but that being said I would not even think a Chinese city model would be that necessary, because its basically the far west that would not be that culturally integrated with China. (Maybe to give a feel of Chinese imperialism in central Asia, a East Asian city center could rule over an otherwise 'eastern layout'
Also I wanted to ask since I am here, does Taxila use the Ameri Indian city style of Medieval II? I'm just curious.
Also I'm sure you have gotten this before, but I Would like to request if the Han Dynasty could be added, (perhaps just for custom battles). The actions of the Han as you know opened the Silk Road, and surely we can imagine that the defenders of Da Yuan (Alexandria Eschate) were Hellenized at the time) Maybe even a special historic battle could be made for this. I heard that there were four faction slots left.
Maybe if the units were made, there would not even need to be a campaign faction, just that hundreds/thousands of soldiers could come and attack the eastern parts of the map. But then again Han faction would still be great for custom battles.
Also if City architecture was an issue I don't think it would be that much a problem as models were already made by other mods, but that being said I would not even think a Chinese city model would be that necessary, because its basically the far west that would not be that culturally integrated with China. (Maybe to give a feel of Chinese imperialism in central Asia, a East Asian city center could rule over an otherwise 'eastern layout'
Also I wanted to ask since I am here, does Taxila use the Ameri Indian city style of Medieval II? I'm just curious.
I regret to inform you that the Han dynasty and any associated units will not be included in EBII as it did not yet exist as of the game's starting date 272BC. Even the more timeline relevant warring states period factions (Such as Qin,Chu etc....) is beyond the scope of this mod (As much as I would want that to happen, it would be awesome if it did...). There is a fleeting suspicion that Taxila may have used the Ameri Indian city style (I am unable to confirm or deny this suspicion at this stage.). Apologies in advance for any possible anguish this may have caused (I know that feeling to...).
Heavenlyhorses
06-15-2021, 19:12
If its the team decision I suppose their mind cannot be changed, but I thought (for example) that time frame was up until 14 AD? Am I incorrect? And China is stable after 202 B.C
The war of the Heavenly Horses is certainly within the timeframe of the game, which is why I think custom units can still be completed, and maybe have a 'historic battle' that would not effect the campaign? I wouldn't really talk about anguish but including SOMETHING that represents China during the War of the Heavenly Horses is a no brainer. Chinese units will be different from other factions, adding more gameplay diversity and it would show one of the most interesting confrontations of all time. This is why I was saying before that the Han army could be generated as rebels that invade from the East. (Indeed this is what happens when one revolts against the Maurya as Taxila). The Chinese changed central Asia and also impacted the whole Eurasian economy. With unit diversity, a new challenge for eastern factions, and a historical background to support it, how could a Western Protectorate not be relevant for a game that goes as far east as Xinjiang?
Actually however all of this moot to me personally because I cannot even get the game to install properly :laugh4:
Heavenlyhorses
06-15-2021, 19:15
Do you think having an Indian city style in the game would be possible?
If its the team decision I suppose their mind cannot be changed, but I thought (for example) that time frame was up until 14 AD? Am I incorrect? And China is stable after 202 B.C
The war of the Heavenly Horses is certainly within the timeframe of the game, which is why I think custom units can still be completed, and maybe have a 'historic battle' that would not effect the campaign? I wouldn't really talk about anguish but including SOMETHING that represents China during the War of the Heavenly Horses is a no brainer. Chinese units will be different from other factions, adding more gameplay diversity and it would show one of the most interesting confrontations of all time. This is why I was saying before that the Han army could be generated as rebels that invade from the East. (Indeed this is what happens when one revolts against the Maurya as Taxila). The Chinese changed central Asia and also impacted the whole Eurasian economy. With unit diversity, a new challenge for eastern factions, and a historical background to support it, how could a Western Protectorate not be relevant for a game that goes as far east as Xinjiang?
Actually however all of this moot to me personally because I cannot even get the game to install properly :laugh4:
Don't worry, EBII does acknowledge the existence of the Han via ancillaries and traits the Saka Rauka get when the Han envoy (likely Zhang Qian) passes through the Tarim Basin.
The mod could pay homage to the events leading up to the War of the Heavenly Horses in 104BC via an offer from a Han envoy offering money at the cost of having the recruitment pools of certain heavy cavalry units in Baktriane, Sogdiane and Skythia depleted for a time. I'm not so sure that actual Chinese units would make an appearance (more likely to think not...). The Xiongnu will also make an appearance in the game (Likely demanding tribute and offering destruction in return for refusal...).
Regardless, the idea has been brought up a few times and has been rejected.
Heavenlyhorses
06-16-2021, 06:28
I appreciate everything that has done but surely if that has been done, what would be the difference in bringing in some Calvary, crossbow men and so forth. The unit models could even be taken from other projects. Maybe just so they can have a place in custom battles, than they could be played against all factions
In the history, the Da Yuan saw the Chinese ambassadors as corrupt and insulted them, if the player does this, it makes sense that there would be a response.
What is the main worry here? In not bringing them in, in some way? Isn't the Greek or Saka/Greek- Chinese confrontation pivotal for world history and iconic for itself
Adalingum
06-16-2021, 07:41
The main issue is pretty simple: the game has a limit of 500 unit slots and we've already allocated practically all of them to units either made or unmade. Chinese troops would show up so late in the game and in so small an area that the team currently judges the slots are better used for other units.
Heavenlyhorses
06-16-2021, 17:03
I understand, then.
Where were the last units allocated?
Also, I have never modded before but I wonder what would it take to make Sub-mod?
Adalingum
06-16-2021, 22:32
I understand, then.
Where were the last units allocated?
Also, I have never modded before but I wonder what would it take to make Sub-mod?Not really to any region in particular. Most of the core rosters are pretty much finished, it's largely remaining regional and reform units scattered throughout that remain to be done, although I can note the northern and southern edges of the map are specifically still waiting for quite a few additions.
Assuming you'd be taking the units from another mod, it mostly requires the copy-pasting of models, skins and sprites into the mod and the finicky task of editing the modeldb file to recognise them. Also some editing of text files to make them actually show up and have all the proper localisation.
Heavenlyhorses
06-19-2021, 18:19
Will there be any West-African or Finnish tribes? Interesting.
QuintusSertorius
06-24-2021, 14:00
Will there be any West-African or Finnish tribes? Interesting.
As factions? No. There is a Finnic unit or two planned.
Lusitanio
07-01-2021, 08:37
I understand, then.
Where were the last units allocated?
Also, I have never modded before but I wonder what would it take to make Sub-mod?
It's not that hard honestly. If you get the models, it's easy to put them in the game as long as you understand what files you need to modify. Usually just the unit description, battle models file, the export_descr_units and the export_descr_buildings file. I have added more than 10 units to the mod already. The worst thing that can happen is that if the models have different skeletons than EBII, some things might look weird.
Shanius_Populusque_Romanus
10-11-2022, 06:47
EB2 is probably my favorite mod ever, the level of detail and attention is amazing and I couldn't be happier that the team is still working on it. Just wanted to add to the praise on the developers!
So I think the mod is great but my suggestion is I would love to be able to start a custom campaign at the earliest date for the marian reforms, (obviously not historically accurate at 147 BC but I think the earlier the better). I just would love to start at that point historically rather than going all the time to turn 500 and see only a few massive factions at that point. All the same marian era units but starting at that point.
I really love the look of the Marian era units, especially in this mod. All of the units look overall look great but to me the marian era romans look more detailed and refined than the polybians and the camillians. So maybe my other suggestion is to detail the polybian romans to the same quality as the marian units. Or if anyone could show me a good guide on how to upgrade their detail I would appreciate it. I am decent at modding but am new to model modding, so I would love to learn myself with some resources.
Keep up the great work EB2 team!
Pazu the Kitsune
11-25-2022, 22:17
I'd suggest considering giving one of the Takashila units the 'wooden stakes' ability. The people living in those jungle regions of India have used punji sticks for thousands of years. They were not only used as a hunting aid, but they also used them to defend their villages against elephants that have run amok.
Love this mod btw :D
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.