Suggestions for v0.8

[Darkarbiter]

Like how the romans took on the greek architecture.? Sounds great atm i think barbarians are a bit bad in the campaign although allowing them to take on certain extra buildings by way of scripting (or troops) that can be recruited nationally not just in one province would be nice. Although maybe only make it local factions. (Like how the selecuds can use kataphraktoi). So maybe just basic stuff like perhaps the getai can build hippeis nationally if they conquer pella. Perhaps that is a bad example but paved roads imo shouldnt be cos of market the faction should have to conquer a city of influence (rome, pella, alexandria) etc and then they can build paved roads. Or even better (not sure if this is possible) let characters get retainers called architects or advanced architects that they need to build certain buildings.

[Slartibardfast]

An end to large unrealistic AI Uber-armies, like Roman armies 80% Triarii and 15 unit Gallic ones comprising solely of Soldurii, Geastatae and nobs on horses.

Is it possible that this might be overcome by not recruiting and paying for individual units but instead "unit groups" that take two to four turns each for these in time to recruit.

Republican Rome, post the Cammilian military reformations would say, pay for a "Maniple" costing the appropriately calculated highly expensive EB recruitment fee, taking four seasons to recruit and making available 60 Velites, 120 Hastate, 120 Princeps, 60 Triarii and 24 various assorted nobs on horses, once recruited.

If something like this was implemented and linked to each cities population recruitment limit, then the composition of the AI factions military would also recover just that little slower and therefore more realistically after a major military disaster.

That way large civil population based factions like the Romans, Greeks and Successors can eventually recover given a few years.

Other more rural and nomadic population based factions such as the Iberians, Gallic, Germanic and Steppe tribes
with a bad enough military defeat a decade or more of unmolested military recovery would be needed, and if strategically decisive as when the Cimbric sojourn into Gaul ran into Marius, extinction.

Would all add a little more historically based campain balance and give those Heroic Victories the much needed space to actually follow up on and make decissive.

Also If "Magicians" and its ilk get into 0.8 can we have some druids?

You know a unit of real ones with Horn blowers, pipers drummers sitting in a semi-circle with a Bard leading the war chant wilst a couple of Samadhi examine the entrails of a goat . Like at Telemon!

The Didjereedoo like drone of the horns during the Chieftains speach giving way to bodhrans and a kettle drum ripping into a 6/8 , the pipes wail and the end trill finishing on a crack of a thousand spears on shields and a single unanamous chant, deafening to all ears "Raaahhhhh-hoooousssssss!"

Cue "Lifting the Cattle" as your tatan clad chums march of to follow your orders.

[Slartibardfast]

I think that it would be a good (and historical) idea if barbarians (and all other factions) as they grab new "civilised lands" should be able to absorb the culture of the "civilised lands". This should enable them to build "civillised buildings" in those provinces and as people from the new provinces move to the home land mabye the infuluence of distant cultures could have an influence here too. Eventually maybe a barbarian faction could end up as a mix of two cultures with mixes of good ideas from conqured factions and their faction. The same could hapen with the greeks or carthaginians if they were to conquer other lands. Basically the best ideas (and religions) from far away factions could end up in the homelands eventually creating a completly new cultire from the mix. Would this be possible?

Dido.

[Darkarbiter]

While messing around with scripts i noticed that you could have a trigger that is when an AI is planning to attack a city. I think that sometimes in MTW if you had a spy do a certain thing cant remember what that they will tell you if an enemy is planning to attack. Perhaps if a really expert spy is put into the enemys capital they will warn of an attack? Thats just a suggestion for something interesting to do with traits/scripting.

[paullus]

I think that it would be a good (and historical) idea if barbarians (and all other factions) as they grab new "civilised lands" should be able to absorb the culture of the "civilised lands". This should enable them to build "civillised buildings" in those provinces and as people from the new provinces move to the home land mabye the infuluence of distant cultures could have an influence here too. Eventually maybe a barbarian faction could end up as a mix of two cultures with mixes of good ideas from conqured factions and their faction. The same could hapen with the greeks or carthaginians if they were to conquer other lands. Basically the best ideas (and religions) from far away factions could end up in the homelands eventually creating a completly new cultire from the mix. Would this be possible?

Aren't some of the type 3's supposed to be something basically along these lines?

What happened most often historically was that, after a land was conquered, the settling populations (usually far smaller than the conquered population, but militarily superior) often pick up a good bit of the local culture. For instance, many of the Galatians in Anatolia adopt Hellenic or Phrygian names and/or cultural practices, even while maintaining a good bit of their own culture (primarily in the military dimension). I'm not sure what that means for how you depict these things in-game, but I do know that most cultures can appropriate pieces of new cultures, and can do so surprisingly easily.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

On giving factions access to things when they conquer other areas-

I will post again what I said in post 482 above on this exact matter:


It is complicated to do those things. If they got access to them in our game's time period, then we try to work out something (like the AS cataphract development), but if they didn't, and we just have to presume a casse empire stretching across Europe would have done X or learned Y, then it's much harder for us to rationalize doing it. Why? Because why not give the Parthians access to the best Iberian stuff or the best Carthaginian stuff too by some mechanism, if they conquer them? Why not give the Ptolemies nomadic steppe buildings if they conquer those places too? There's just way too many variables. But like I said, if there's evidence that a culture *did* have (not "well maybe they could have had") something in our time period, then we will work to get it in. Just too much work and too many variables to make more paths and possible options and such.

This is not magic. It is a complex code but the the code itself has many many many limitations. We can't have reforms for every faction for conquering other factions and triggering availability for other buildings. This is absolutely crazy and if you ask for it on other mods you'll get the same answer. We try our best to do it very selectively with a few things we know factions got access to during our timeframe, but that's the best we can do. Our building code is already by far the most complex (maybe too complex) of any mod out there for this game. I don't mind answering this issue, but right after I answered it it is annoying to have to answer it again.

[Slartibardfast]

Cavalry, infantry flanks and rears, and "Bugger! Every one else has scarpered!".

Cavalry.
Is it part of the hard code that all cavalry charge and fight hand to hand until told otherwise?

Apart from cataphracts, who basically walked the horse every where anyway, and full on H2H/rear charges this is just daft.

Is there someway to programme cavalry formations when charging from the flanks to charge on an angle each take two or three swipes and bugger off as a collective group a bit more quickly to do so again and again? Didn't CA crap on about this in the RTW promo's?

Talk to any living cavalry officer (military or police) and this is pretty much what they do to this day. This is because horses are hopefully intelligent by nature and criminally insane at best and trying to get a horse to charge directly at anything is impossible. They run for the gaps and turnaway, rear or jump if a real collision at pace is on the cards.

Just something to think about.

Flanks and Rears.
EB has done a wonderful job on making matched infantry engagements drag on if no sudden advantage is immanent.

It may be just the Triarii in my present Averni campaign but it does seem anyone with a 24' or longer spear can instantly turn to the rear in formation to face a cavalry charge without being immediately cut to pieces by the 6' naked infantry swordsmen they are already holding off and turning their backs on.

For pikes and thrusting spears formation is everything, so I feel there needs to be some tweaking here.

I've noticed that these pike dudes are always generally "steady"or even "impetuous" when this happens.

Is there some way to make pikes (or any unit) struck by cavalry in the rear emmediately "shaken" to reflect the fact that their fighting formation is pretty much now up the Khyber and they have a very long 16 pound useless stick in there hands?

"Bugger! Every one else has scarpered!".
Speaking of troops being "shaken", and I take this as meaning just having been so scared half of them are reaching for clean toga's, is there some way to programme "Shaken" troops to only skirmish or avoid combat. It just seems it would be a priority to change ones underwear before charging into more certain death if one was to do so at all.

In my present campain I've just knoked off a junior Roman nob and made the senior Roman nob run away and had the majority of the rest of the Pax Romana Appreaciation Society on the hop. But two units of this supposedly innitially superior army were holding out.

Both where almost surrounded by 3 of my units each and they where both "steady".

This brought up the "Bugger! Every one else has scarpered!" facter which seemed to not trouble these guys at all and eventually held out for several more minutes and half my meagre cavalry.

Is there a way to have an army, player or AI, become demoralised by obvious loses say 60% of original units in rout that everyone, exept fanatics, will start to see the benifits of descretion over valour.

Just the end of my wish list.

Some other wish lists raised quite a number of interesting ideas for consideration as well.

If all the various bugs and graphic glitches that seem to be mentioned in the threads are fixed and the game balance keeps improving as it has with previous releases,
0.8 is looking good and hopefully will up the anti once again.

[MSB]

One day I was reading a (very boring book) and then I suddenly got a great idea. Why not remove any aspect of a family member system for the romans (as in family trees, heirs e.c.t.) and just have the senate as your rulers. And as it would have been ahistorical to have Roman generals rule provinces have the senate elect Pro-Consuls for every region. The Pro-Consul would be a stationary individual that could not move from town to town or become a general and lead an army (unless he mabye gained a certain trait). And mabye (if possible) have the senate electing suitiable generals (that can get traits) to lead armys (the senate electing a general per 20 units of men). Also you mabye you could introduce Roman Rebels (like RTR is for version 7.0) to stimulate civil wars such as Sulla vs Marius and disloyal genrals revolting (like in BI) e.c.t. And would it also be possible to have more senate offices open (e.g. two Consuls e.c.t.) I know that this would be at best VERY hard to do, but is it possible to do at all

And about what I said before...


I think that it would be a good (and historical) idea if barbarians (and all other factions) as they grab new "civilised lands" should be able to absorb the culture of the "civilised lands". This should enable them to build "civillised buildings" in those provinces and as people from the new provinces move to the home land mabye the infuluence of distant cultures could have an influence here too. Eventually maybe a barbarian faction could end up as a mix of two cultures with mixes of good ideas from conqured factions and their faction. The same could hapen with the greeks or carthaginians if they were to conquer other lands. Basically the best ideas (and religions) from far away factions could end up in the homelands eventually creating a completly new cultire from the mix. Would this be possible?

I think it's a shame about this idea being impossible. I would have though it would have added a new level of realism to the mod (and the game). What the CA neeed to do is ask the community first before they create any new TW games asking what the community want rather than creating something that quite alot of people are resonably dissapointed with.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Is it possible that this might be overcome by not recruiting and paying for individual units but instead "unit groups" that take two to four turns each for these in time to recruit.

Part of it has been done in the RES GESTAE mod, the 'recruiting and paying for groups of units' (being a complete army) was achieved through scripting: everytime you gained yourself a new general in your capital you got an army too. But the possibility of recruiting individual units was kept. However this script focussed solely on Roman factions.

So the answer to this is, if the Europa Barbaorum team is prepared to invest lots of time in this idea, yes.

[Darkarbiter]

Cavalry, infantry flanks and rears, and "Bugger! Every one else has scarpered!".

Cavalry.
Is it part of the hard code that all cavalry charge and fight hand to hand until told otherwise?

Apart from cataphracts, who basically walked the horse every where anyway, and full on H2H/rear charges this is just daft.

Is there someway to programme cavalry formations when charging from the flanks to charge on an angle each take two or three swipes and bugger off as a collective group a bit more quickly to do so again and again? Didn't CA crap on about this in the RTW promo's?

Talk to any living cavalry officer (military or police) and this is pretty much what they do to this day. This is because horses are hopefully intelligent by nature and criminally insane at best and trying to get a horse to charge directly at anything is impossible. They run for the gaps and turnaway, rear or jump if a real collision at pace is on the cards.

Just something to think about.

Flanks and Rears.
EB has done a wonderful job on making matched infantry engagements drag on if no sudden advantage is immanent.

It may be just the Triarii in my present Averni campaign but it does seem anyone with a 24' or longer spear can instantly turn to the rear in formation to face a cavalry charge without being immediately cut to pieces by the 6' naked infantry swordsmen they are already holding off and turning their backs on.

For pikes and thrusting spears formation is everything, so I feel there needs to be some tweaking here.

I've noticed that these pike dudes are always generally "steady"or even "impetuous" when this happens.

Is there some way to make pikes (or any unit) struck by cavalry in the rear emmediately "shaken" to reflect the fact that their fighting formation is pretty much now up the Khyber and they have a very long 16 pound useless stick in there hands?

"Bugger! Every one else has scarpered!".
Speaking of troops being "shaken", and I take this as meaning just having been so scared half of them are reaching for clean toga's, is there some way to programme "Shaken" troops to only skirmish or avoid combat. It just seems it would be a priority to change ones underwear before charging into more certain death if one was to do so at all.

In my present campain I've just knoked off a junior Roman nob and made the senior Roman nob run away and had the majority of the rest of the Pax Romana Appreaciation Society on the hop. But two units of this supposedly innitially superior army were holding out.

Both where almost surrounded by 3 of my units each and they where both "steady".

This brought up the "Bugger! Every one else has scarpered!" facter which seemed to not trouble these guys at all and eventually held out for several more minutes and half my meagre cavalry.

Is there a way to have an army, player or AI, become demoralised by obvious loses say 60% of original units in rout that everyone, exept fanatics, will start to see the benifits of descretion over valour.

Just the end of my wish list.

Some other wish lists raised quite a number of interesting ideas for consideration as well.

If all the various bugs and graphic glitches that seem to be mentioned in the threads are fixed and the game balance keeps improving as it has with previous releases,
0.8 is looking good and hopefully will up the anti once again.

Now i know giving units with small sheilds might be unrealistic to alot of people but this is the way RTW works. (Im allmost certain defence skill is only applied from the front so plz correct me if im wrong)
Defence total (used for melee from the front)
Armour+sheilds(used for ranged attacks from the front)
armour(used for ranged attacks from behind)
So therefore decreasing armour and increasing shield on units (even for units without sheilds) for heavily armoured units would be more realisitic IMO. Cos no matter how much armour your wearing if your vsing 3 ppl then one is gonna grab a knife and find a slot in your armour (or just strangle you). That would meen trarii being attacked from the front have the exact same losses. Trarii being attacked from the front and back would have quite a bit more. and trarii stretched out thinly enough that its only 1 unit per column and are being attacked from the front and behind are gonna die very fast (just as they would) Changing armour to sheild will also make ranged attacks from behind more devastating (but then ofcourse if the units sorrounded anyway thats gonna be painfull for your units) which since there was armour bad enough to stop the weakest of ranged attacks is a bit unrealistic but it weighs itself out to be better in general.

[Cybvep]

I agree with Darkarbiter. Also, you can do some minor text-changes and it will make more sense.

My propositions:
Armour->Overall Protection
Defence Skill->Melee Defence
Shield->Additional Protection

or

Armour->Overall Defence
Defence Skill->Additional Melee Defence
Shield->Additional Front Defence / Additional Ranged & Melee Defence

[Fondor_Yards]

Is there someway to programme cavalry formations when charging from the flanks to charge on an angle each take two or three swipes and bugger off as a collective group a bit more quickly to do so again and again? Didn't CA crap on about this in the RTW promo's?

You have to manual tell them to do that in game.


It may be just the Triarii in my present Averni campaign but it does seem anyone with a 24' or longer spear can instantly turn to the rear in formation to face a cavalry charge without being immediately cut to pieces by the 6' naked infantry swordsmen they are already holding off and turning their backs on.

Hardcoded


Is there some way to make pikes (or any unit) struck by cavalry in the rear emmediately "shaken" to reflect the fact that their fighting formation is pretty much now up the Khyber and they have a very long 16 pound useless stick in there hands?

Most units will drop down a morale level or two already, if they don't rout right away, when hit in the rear with cavalry.


Speaking of troops being "shaken", and I take this as meaning just having been so scared half of them are reaching for clean toga's, is there some way to programme "Shaken" troops to only skirmish or avoid combat. It just seems it would be a priority to change ones underwear before charging into more certain death if one was to do so at all.

Erm not that I know of. When they try to avoid combat it's called routing. Shaken means that just crapped their pants but they havn't given up yet.


Is there a way to have an army, player or AI, become demoralised by obvious loses say 60% of original units in rout that everyone, exept fanatics, will start to see the benifits of descretion over valour.

Units do become demoralised by seeing friendly units routing.


Armour Rating: Protects from all sides from all attacks equaly, except from armour piercing attacks which make their armour rating only count for half for that attack

Defensive Skill: Only counts in meele combat. Shows several different things, like being able to sidestep or dodge a stab, parry a strike, etc

Shield Rating: Basicly the same as armour rating, but only counts on the unit's left side and front since all men in RTW are right handed and have their shields on their left hand.




Remember, they can't change the AI and a lot of stuff which is mostly hardcoded. They can only use a few loopholes to make everything better *like using traits with the script to do so many things*. Also kinda off comment, but you have a very strange vocabulary my friend...

[Darkarbiter]

certain units have higher morale then others. Immedietly making units shaken would equal out things and make units with higher morale (and probably a higher price cos of it) not very effective. Also the simple fact that if i have 2 units with 20 defence one an elite barbarian unit with high defence skill and sheild and one a roman legion with high armour that the legion would be more damaged by armour piercing attacks strikes me as a little odd i think armour piercing should be reserved for ranged units only.

[Cybvep]

certain units have higher morale then others. Immedietly making units shaken would equal out things and make units with higher morale (and probably a higher price cos of it) not very effective. Also the simple fact that if i have 2 units with 20 defence one an elite barbarian unit with high defence skill and sheild and one a roman legion with high armour that the legion would be more damaged by armour piercing attacks strikes me as a little odd i think armour piercing should be reserved for ranged units only.
AP Unit - medium/low attack, ap, low/medium lethality
Roman Legion - medium/high armour and shield, low/medium defence, high attack, low lethality
Barbarian Elite - low/medium armour, medium/high defence and shield, medium/high attack, medium lethality

With such settings unit with ap wouldn't really damage RL more because of high shield bonus, smaller, but still meaningful armour bonus and high attack. Also, units with ap SHOULDN'T decimate unarmoured units because of mobility. I don't really see a problem and besides, ranged units with ap is not really a good idea (except units with javelins maybe) because archers shouldn't decimate armoured units.

EDIT: Will v0.8 feature any changes to the army formations?

[Slartibardfast]

Erm not that I know of. When they try to avoid combat it's called routing. Shaken means that just crapped their pants but they havn't given up yet.

Crapped pants is a good sign they are ready to give up. My piont being unless your a Yank GI strung out on amphetamines or "sworn to deveto" the last thing on your mind is going to be charging an enemy unit was my piont.

Still I'm beiginning to understand the limitations of the RTW hardcode.

My Arvernii have just masacred two Roman mercenary armies just out side Rome without too much trouble.

Perhaps its just my own personnal tastes believing that the pre-Camellian Roman armour/defence ratings are over-rated compared to other similar troop types.

[Slartibardfast]

Part of it has been done in the RES GESTAE mod, the 'recruiting and paying for groups of units' (being a complete army) was achieved through scripting: everytime you gained yourself a new general in your capital you got an army too. But the possibility of recruiting individual units was kept. However this script focussed solely on Roman factions.

So the answer to this is, if the Europa Barbaorum team is prepared to invest lots of time in this idea, yes.

Great news.

Well it's up to the EB team if they go with this as it seems to be alot of work on there part if they decide to do so.:no:

It would help cut down on Uber-armies and put the Hastati, Roriari and Leves back into Roman AI armies.

I'll have to check the RES GESTAE mod, thanks for the tip.

[orwell]

One day I was reading a (very boring book) and then I suddenly got a great idea. Why not remove any aspect of a family member system for the romans (as in family trees, heirs e.c.t.) and just have the senate as your rulers. And as it would have been ahistorical to have Roman generals rule provinces have the senate elect Pro-Consuls for every region. The Pro-Consul would be a stationary individual that could not move from town to town or become a general and lead an army (unless he mabye gained a certain trait). And mabye (if possible) have the senate electing suitiable generals (that can get traits) to lead armys (the senate electing a general per 20 units of men). Also you mabye you could introduce Roman Rebels (like RTR is for version 7.0) to stimulate civil wars such as Sulla vs Marius and disloyal genrals revolting (like in BI) e.c.t. And would it also be possible to have more senate offices open (e.g. two Consuls e.c.t.) I know that this would be at best VERY hard to do, but is it possible to do at all


If your playing Rome, your best bet would be to turn on automanage everything. If not, then the AI is, which is as good as the senate. Personally, I think RTR's secondary faction thing is a good idea. Turn the saka rauka into a counter faction for sarmatia, and the arverni into a counter for the aedui. Still in the game, just not a main part. Then change the map to add maurya. The game is about alternate history. What if they didn't adopt a pacifist attitude, and were angered by the war with seleukid, developed a full military, and went forth and conquered. Seluekia was challenged by everybody, everywhere, and was falling apart, as seen by pontus, armenia, baktria, and probably more not in the game. The ancient USSR, minus the fact that they turned into republics instead of monarchies. I think. I want a book on the cold war and the USSR so I can really know what was going on. Anyways. Counter faction probably won't happen, unless somebody mods EB to have it, since I don't really expect that idea to happen in EB. Removing the family system only really makes sense for a while. Towards last century bc, as I understood it the yearly rotation started to stop and public offices got to be full time jobs.

[Darkarbiter]

If your playing Rome, your best bet would be to turn on automanage everything. If not, then the AI is, which is as good as the senate. Personally, I think RTR's secondary faction thing is a good idea. Turn the saka rauka into a counter faction for sarmatia, and the arverni into a counter for the aedui. Still in the game, just not a main part. Then change the map to add maurya. The game is about alternate history. What if they didn't adopt a pacifist attitude, and were angered by the war with seleukid, developed a full military, and went forth and conquered. Seluekia was challenged by everybody, everywhere, and was falling apart, as seen by pontus, armenia, baktria, and probably more not in the game. The ancient USSR, minus the fact that they turned into republics instead of monarchies. I think. I want a book on the cold war and the USSR so I can really know what was going on. Anyways. Counter faction probably won't happen, unless somebody mods EB to have it, since I don't really expect that idea to happen in EB. Removing the family system only really makes sense for a while. Towards last century bc, as I understood it the yearly rotation started to stop and public offices got to be full time jobs.
Secondary faction requires BI which is a long steppe from EB. From what ive heard 1.0 will be RTW based so therefore i dont think your gonna see 40 factions in game for a very very long time.

[Foot]

Secondary faction requires BI which is a long steppe from EB. From what ive heard 1.0 will be RTW based so therefore i dont think your gonna see 40 factions in game for a very very long time.

Regardless of BI I don't think that secondary factions would be probable. We've reached our model and unit limit (though both have not been fully completed) and making new factions would be losing stuff elsewhere.

Foot

[orwell]

Maybe, however, from what I understand, RTR's method is that they don't just leave it in the game, they physically take it out so that those models simply aren't there unless you load the script, which removes whatever other faction you played earlier. So theoritically all your doing is removing an entire faction to replace it with another. The limits, if any of this makes sense, and is accurate, is how many models does the faction being removed have. And skins and units and all that good stuff. Of course, this is all guess work, RTR 7.0 needs to come out first.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

The crazy amount of information and work that has gone into the 21 factions we have will not be possible to do for 20 (or whatever the number) of mini-factions for a port to 1.6. Removing faction units, removing the complex scripts and building code and changing things up for that additional feature (basically one extra faction for when you are playing) is not something we are interested in doing (when it means getting rid of one other one each time). Best of luck to them trying it out though. I should tell you now that I can't possibly imagine that we would think about doing it. Getting to 1.0 for us is so insanely complicated that we will be thrilled enough with that.

[Discoskull]

I don't know if anybody else has mentioned it, but the warcry for the barbarian units has gotten rather wimpy when compared to vanilla (the ONLY thing I liked better in V).
Would it be possible to bring back the loud warcry that reverberates across the battlefield and turns stupid italians to heel, rather than the half-hearted shield-clammer that you see at the deployment stage?

[abou]

If it were possible, TK, maybe in BI that extra slot could be a second rebel faction that uses the same units as the first? That way the benefits of the new engine can be used without drastic reworking of units and extensive research into a new faction.

Also, would it be possible to give infantry units the wedge formation? I keep seeing it come up in re-enactment websites and information on famous battles (Battle of Watling Street for example) and it would be nice to have. Unfortunately it would conflict with other special abilities such as the testudo; however, I never really used the testudo because of how long it takes to get into and out of the formation.

[orwell]

BI doesn't unlock an extra faction, it simply removes the senate in its entirety. All faction slots are currently filled, with 20 playable factions and one slave faction. The only possible faction that will have loyalty as seen in BI is aedui/arverni, since the arverni is basically a god-king who rebelled from the aedui. I hope. Makes sense in my head anyways. Trait based loyalty for some factions might be possible, based on the ethnicities, though the triggers and requirements, and then the act of switching a generals army from one faction to another still needs looked into.

[Darkarbiter]

BI doesn't unlock an extra faction, it simply removes the senate in its entirety. All faction slots are currently filled, with 20 playable factions and one slave faction. The only possible faction that will have loyalty as seen in BI is aedui/arverni, since the arverni is basically a god-king who rebelled from the aedui. I hope. Makes sense in my head anyways. Trait based loyalty for some factions might be possible, based on the ethnicities, though the triggers and requirements, and then the act of switching a generals army from one faction to another still needs looked into.

Have you played BI? extra factions get created. You dont need to make every faction from spain to china be in there but just adding in some roman rebels and stuff in there wouldnt be too much effort hopefully and would add a lot to the game. Also could we make it that if the audei/avernii are wiped out that one of them could represent another celtic tribe coming to power as this is what happened historically (from reading ceasers conquest of gual) this is the impression i got. Perhaps if their wiped out they get all the helvetii/remi/sequani/someoneelse territories and depending on the amount of troops in a province one extra province rebels and joins the rising celtic faction.

[Corinthian Hoplite]

I think the roman Cohors Imperatoria and Cohors Praetoriana shouldn't use the lorica hamata (there is evidence that they didn't). Imperial should use the lorica segmenta and the praetorians a heavy metal cuirass (as the late general guards).

[abou]

I think the roman Cohors Imperatoria and Cohors Praetoriana shouldn't use the lorica hamata (there is evidence that they didn't). Imperial should use the lorica segmenta and the praetorians a heavy metal cuirass (as the late general guards).
Unfortunately, the game doesn't extend to the period in which the segmentata was becoming - if it ever was - mainstream; ergo, using it wouldn't be accurate.

[Corinthian Hoplite]

Spartan hoplites should exist in the mod (perhaps I'm wrong but I think the spartan culture was almost intact by 272BC) They should use the aspis (greek round shield), the spear (should be longer than normal infantry spears but not a phalanx one), a linen or metal cuirass (I think linen is more accurate for the period of time), greaves, a corinthian helmet with a "vertical" crest, a red cloak and the xiphos (spartan short sword). Preferably they should use the spear "overarm" (but this may cause a lot of animation work, if you appreciate the idea though, you can see these animations well done in Terrae Expugnandae Mod) and fight in a cohese formation with little spacing between soldiers (don't put the spacing below 0.8 in export_descr_units or they will start pushing each other and then returning to place (this happens with BI shieldwall formation)).

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I would love to know where detailed information about early third century spartiates comes from. :grin:

Most of what you said is what we have though - we will not have a corinthian helmet, and the cuirass will be metal instead of linen. We have had an overhand hoplite animation for quite some time now.

======================
As for new factions getting created in BI: those factions still took up faction slots, even if they were not present on the map at the start of the game. You cannot have more than 21 factions in a single game - period. You can get around it by eliminating one faction each new game, and putting another faction in, like RTR is doing I think, but that 21 limit is hardcoded.

[Corinthian Hoplite]

Well maybe the information isn't accurate but who changed their culture btw?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I don't understand the question CH. Their culture? They are still within the greek culture group for 0.8 - it includes KH, Maks, and Epeirotes.

[Corinthian Hoplite]

I mean: Which civilization changed spartan militaristic culture?
I think that if noone interfeared with their culture they wouldn't change it-after all they were "hide bound traditionalists".

[Teleklos Archelaou]

No civilization changed their switching from corinthian helmets. I don't know what specific issues made the pilos helmet more popular, but across the greek world it became more of a standard for hoplites in our period than the older corinthian one. We definitely aren't going to depict a 480 BC Spartan hoplite - sorry. They also eventually changed to a pike phalanx method of fighting, but it hadn't taken place yet by the time our game starts.

[Geoffrey S]

I mean: Which civilization changed spartan militaristic culture?
I think that if noone interfeared with their culture they wouldn't change it-after all they were "hide bound traditionalists".
One of the more important issues was the destruction of the helot system; this system was the reason that Spartan citizens could dedicate their life to becoming excellent soldiers. Without their helot workforce spartans would have had less time for training, and would also have had to develop their economy in a new way. This led to man spartans serving as mercenaries in foreign armies, and ultimately changed the society from the classic spartan one into a new form.

Basically, the absence of the helot labourforce made it impossible to keep up the old ways.

[paullus]

On that discussion, have you decided if there will eventually be a Mak-style phalanx available for the KH at some point in their development?

<EDIT: you asked who did it, CH, and you can look to Epamonidas as a key player in that story...there's a good biography runnin' about, but I can't remember who wrote it (I didn't read the whole thing...need more free time)>

But I got on to make these suggestions:
1) Have you thought about making Galatia a type 4 province of Pontos? I'm not sure what the government types for Pontos actually ARE, but I do know that Pontos had very close relationships with Bithynia and the Galatians, and the relationship with the Galatians was--in c.274 at least--more of a client relationship than an alliance.
2) Has there been any thought to attempting to portraying mercenary service in both of the two most common ways it historically occurred: a) individual or small-group merc service (portrayed moderately well through the current system), and b) symmachoi service, where mini-armies were recruited all-together. This latter could be done through scripting (I think other mods may already have something like this?), and could bring even more diversity to recruitment.

And on the subject of mercs, any thought to making certain regions into "merc hotspots," thus giving recruitment incentives for building a good navy (so you can go the danube mouth, or to pamphylia, etc, in search of good mercs)?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We're trying not to introduce more complexity into the system for the 0.8 build. We're just trying to figure out where problems exist and get the rest of the build up to speed. There are so many things on the table and drawing board that we have to wait on though, and I think a discussion of recruiting whole armies at a time is one of them, but all of them will have to wait for the time being. KH reforms are also on the backburner for now. It's just not as urgent as some other things, even though I realize talking about it out in the public forum (where development isn't taking place) is fun. :grin:

As for the relationship with galatia - in 272 pontos doesn't really have one yet. Since it will occur later in the game, it's one where the player can choose the type of govt that they want. I think it will be limitd to a type3 or 4 though. I don't remember a type2 being there, but I'm not sure.

[NeoSpartan]

One of the more important issues was the destruction of the helot system; this system was the reason that Spartan citizens could dedicate their life to becoming excellent soldiers. Without their helot workforce spartans would have had less time for training, and would also have had to develop their economy in a new way. This led to man spartans serving as mercenaries in foreign armies, and ultimately changed the society from the classic spartan one into a new form.

Basically, the absence of the helot labourforce made it impossible to keep up the old ways.

True, but apparantly the Spartan system didn't die out all together. Check this out:
"Spartans continued their way of life even after the Roman conquest of Greece. The city became a tourist exhibit for the Roman elite who came to observe the "unusual" Spartan customs. Purportedly, following the disaster that befell the Roman Imperial Army at the Battle of Adrianople (378 AD), a Spartan phalanx met and defeated a force of raiding Visigoths in battle. There is, however, no genuine evidence of this occurring."

Its from Wikipedie.org. (I tried to do some quick researching in the Online accademic search on my College but since class haven't started yet, I couldn't log in.:wall: )

I am sure Spartan Hoplites can be incorporated in EB. Only that they should NOT be UBER units. (by 272BC and up, a lot of nations already had Profecional Soldiers, problably 2 hit pts like gageastre (sp) would do)

[Avicenna]

The Romans just viewed it as entertainment. I think it was things like young boys fighting each other like they sometimes would have when the agoge system was present. They certainly couldn't live the same way after losing their helots: for one thing, nobody would farm for them anymore, forcing them to make food themselves, thus not being able to spend their time training to be the perfect soldier.

[paullus]

eh, there were still PLENTY of slaves around, so its not like everyone in Lakonia had to become a blue collar, two jobs, both parents working sorta thing. The richest families could afford, and at some times did, observe the Spartan martial traditions (Plutarch describes some of the Spartan activities that went on during his lifetime).

[Geoffrey S]

True, but apparantly the Spartan system didn't die out all together. Check this out:
"Spartans continued their way of life even after the Roman conquest of Greece. The city became a tourist exhibit for the Roman elite who came to observe the "unusual" Spartan customs. Purportedly, following the disaster that befell the Roman Imperial Army at the Battle of Adrianople (378 AD), a Spartan phalanx met and defeated a force of raiding Visigoths in battle. There is, however, no genuine evidence of this occurring."

Its from Wikipedie.org. (I tried to do some quick researching in the Online accademic search on my College but since class haven't started yet, I couldn't log in.:wall: )

I am sure Spartan Hoplites can be incorporated in EB. Only that they should NOT be UBER units. (by 272BC and up, a lot of nations already had Profecional Soldiers, problably 2 hit pts like gageastre (sp) would do)
I don't deny this. Although the richest spartan families could continue the traditional way of life, as paullus stated, this would be out of reach for many other families who could no longer dedicate their entire lives to martial prowess now there were fewer helots to rely on. What was left was a fraction of the spartan way applied to a minority of Spartans, rather than to the people as a whole.

[Corinthian Hoplite]

Thanks for the replies dudes

[Tellos Athenaios]

Maybe it has already been sugested, but anyway: will the pantodapoi skin files be changed, so that they appear correctly in the game?
I mean, in game, I can see that they've got spears - yes, but these are located where suppodsedly the right half of the shield should appear and not in their right hands.

[Orb]

Suggestion:

More nudity, and Samuel L. Jackson does the voices...
You can hear the "motherlovin' Carthaginians" now...

[Simmons]

Maybe it has already been sugested, but anyway: will the pantodapoi skin files be changed, so that they appear correctly in the game?
I mean, in game, I can see that they've got spears - yes, but these are located where suppodsedly the right half of the shield should appear and not in their right hands.

This screenshot is from the Eastern Kingdoms Preview (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=65616&highlight=Eastern+Kingdoms) from june I would assume the other factions Pantodapoi have been reskinned as well

And some reskins:
https://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1001/armenianpan9wi.th.jpg (https://img228.imageshack.us/my.php?image=armenianpan9wi.jpg)
Pantodapoi - Hayasdan

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well, then, :embarassed: never mind....

[C.LVCIANVS]

AVE!

~:cheers:
I have downloaded the EB 7.04 from the site, and after a month, I must say that's the best I've ever played. It's a beta, but is simply better than many others finished mods for RTW. Strategy, languages, ships, traits and ancillaries, building system, the wonderful map, unit models, factions... EVERYTHING IS AWESOME. Congratulations. Waiting for the 1.5 rome version.
I've got some little questions: First cohorts with eagle bearers will be avaiable?
The naval system will be divided in transport and war ships? And naval fighting will become more interesting?
Siege weapons: scorps, onagers etc. how many for each unit?
Units attributes: Gaesatae are naked! why 5 points of armour?? I think that attributes must reflect realistic unit's equipment... For every faction or culture... maybe can be balanced with their defence skill or shield values...

I like this mod so much that I can't stop modifing these things from myself...:oops:
Thanks a lot for any answer and sorry for my *BAD IS BETTER* english. :embarassed: I'm _ italian.
~:wave:
SORRY SORRY SORRY!:oops: As usual...:laugh4:
VALE!

[Vendayn]

Better Casse generals...the generals suck compared to other generals ingame.

[MSB]

I know this is for suggestions for v0.8, but I have a suggestion for 1.0. Mabye you could move to BI so then you can have rebels that emerge as a new faction (to simulate civil wars like in RTR 7.0) and almost unlimited factions. Also this will be the longest post I have ever placed on a forum. It incooperates a load of ideas that I thought would be historically accurate for TW games.

The population could be divided into three classes. These are peasants, middle class and upper class. There will generally be many peasants yet very few members of the upper class. These classes have some people in them who want to join the military and some that don’t. There are also two types of military unit—levy (quickly drawn up cheap militia taken from lower and middle class who may or may now want to join the military who only serve for a very short time and will automatically disband if they return home) or “professional” volunteers who are people who wanted to join the military and have had at least a small amount of training. They generally serve for up up to twenty five years before disbanding

The levy units are poorly equipped and as you have to pay for their arms and amour and are moderately expensive to recruit however they have no up keep costs yet as said will disband after about four years or if they return to their homeland. They will however rebel very easily in anger of been dragged from home and if there is a rebellion in their homeland then the chances are that they will desert to join it.

Professional volunteers are divided into the classes and require a Barracks at least at level 2 to be trained (unlike the levy who require no training facilities at all) they last (as said) for up to twenty five years before disbanding. They are recruited from the different classes of people who wish to fight. They are also more loyal than levy units. This means they will not rebel against your generals or you as you are paying them. They will however be disloyal like any other unit if their homeland is rebelling and may desert and join the homeland rebel course.

The peasant “professional” units can generally only afford basic training and weapons so have poor discipline and morale, but due to their hard life style they generally have very good stamina and rarely tire. Peasant units can rarely be trained passed the level 2 Barracks stage as they cannot afford to be trained beyond this stage.

The middle class “professional” units can generally afford good weapons armour and training up to the large barracks stage. They usually have (depending on the amount of training) good morale and average stamina. This can be optimized with more training at larger barracks facilities.

The upper class “professional” units can afford the best weapons armour and equipment, they can be superbly trained and due to their class have some of the best morale of all troops yet as they are used to doing little except paper work and money counting have some of the poorest stamina as well. Their morale and stamina can be optimized with further training.

Also for Romans when Marian units disband (for a pention) the units must be payed double their up keep costs.

This three class style of working has effects on the economy. Each class has jobs which can be done. E.g. Peasants can become farmers (with land), farmers (without land, in some factions only land owners can join the army), builders, shopkeepers, blacksmiths, wood-workers (only in wooded areas), fishermen (only in settlements with a trading port) and ship builders (only in settlements with a military port), middle class people can become farm owners, sea traders (only in settlements with a port), land traders, shopkeepers, scholars, priests, money lenders, treasurers, architects, military trainers (only in settlements with a barracks) and tax collectors and the upper class can become estate owners, priests, settlement managers, scholars, money lenders, treasurers and they can of course just be lazy good for nothings too. These jobs provide advantages and dis-advantages. Having a large amount of tax collectors can add a huge tax bonus to the settlement while causing unrest while having lots of scholars in a settlement will cause characters to gain lots of traits and cause people to get better at their jobs yet will really not contribute anything to your economy while having lots of farmers in the settlements will increase the population growth and give farming bonus’ yet may cause (if a famine) these farmers to lose their jobs and their land. This final issue brings us on to the next issue of unemployment.

Unemployment is extremely bad. Not only does it cause people to die of starvation as they cannot afford food, but it also causes riots and other issues. It is best to try to resolve employment issues before they get really big. If a large amount of people in a settlement is unemployed then the people will riot over food killing the other classes and sometimes taking over a town! This can be cured automatically if there is a good harvest (more jobs for people on the land) or if buildings that provide jobs are built or if these people (if they own land in some factions) join the army.

The peasant class is very unstable. If there is a famine the farmers (and farm owners) lose some of their jobs and they are often the worst hit by this as they lack the money to buy food. The peasant class then slowly dies off with less and less people to work which them causes issues with the middle class who then due to further inflation cannot afford to eat so they end up becoming peasants themselves. This also courses riots (which very rarely conclude in a settlement being taken over however it is possible).

Another new idea is about culture I think that it would be a good (and historical) idea if barbarians (and all other factions) as they grab new "civilised lands" should be able to absorb the culture of the "civilised lands". This should enable them to build "civilised buildings" in those provinces and as people from the new provinces move to the home land maybe the influence of distant cultures could have an influence here too. Eventually maybe a barbarian faction could end up as a mix of two cultures with mixes of good ideas from conquered factions and their faction. The same could happen with the Greeks or Carthaginians if they were to conquer other lands. Basically the best ideas (and religions) from far away factions could end up in the homelands eventually creating a completely new culture from the mix. And yes I have said this bit before in this forum, but it may be more possible in BI?

Another new idea is about immigration. If one province is very desirable and rich the un-employed from one settlement (before rioting) try to move out of a settlement to move to another one hence increasing it’s population. You could also (like ajusting taxes) change the immigration system by disallowing or allowing more people to move. Plage can also spread as immigrants move away from the plage hence spreading it.

Also instead of a whole entire settlement revolting certain classes revolt. For example if peasants are un happy they riot and different things make different classes happier or un-happier. Also if the peasants or the middle class revolt the chances are that a rebellion would be short lived and would soon be either destroyed or would come back to the old faction in time anyway yet an upper class rebellion would be a full scale high rebellion with professional troops and good generals sometimes even creating a new splinter faction. A rebellion from hell? Also perhaps rebellions could spread from town to town (e.g. if a neighbouring town found out how easy it was to rebel it would join the rebels or rebel independantly it’s self depending on it’s own happiness)

Also it would be good if their was a way of setting up colonys on distant near or your own lands. This could be set up by a family member like a fort or by recuiting a colonising unit at a settlement. This could either be land owned by nobody (by intoducing "no mans" land to represent land un inhabited by anybody important at the time) or owned by another faction (this could be made a diplomatic option as permition to set up a colony on their lands) a tiny ammount of land surrounding the settlement is what is farmed and taxes are taken from. These colonys cannot increase in size beyond a population of say 12,000 level. Also over time forts could turn into colonys if soilders stationed their disband either when ordered to or when their service term ends. If colonys are built in "no mans" land then they create a new province all together.

Also create a very historical senate (not as a faction just as a scroll) with the correct ammount of offices as it would have been historicaly. (e.g. Two Consuls) and perhaps have Roman settlement governers elected and gernals elected two. Also have it so that Roman Generals cannot become governers and Roman Governers cannot become generals (or at least without a trait).

I am sorry if I come across as a demanding idiot, but I think that these ideas would add a new feel of complexity to the game even though they would probably be hard to do. I am sorry if I come across as an idiot. Sorry sorry sorry.

[Foot]

Unfortunately Matthius, most of your suggestions are impossible to implement due to hardcoding.

As for BI and extra faction slots, as TA has already stated due to the amount of work involved it is incredibly unlikely that we will ever go the way of RTR 7 and have the 21st faction as an auxiliary one.

Foot

[cunctator]

AVE!
I have downloaded the EB 7.04 from the site, and after a month, I must say that's the best I've ever played. It's a beta, but is simply better than many others finished mods for RTW. Strategy, languages, ships, traits and ancillaries, building system, the wonderful map, unit models, factions... EVERYTHING IS AWESOME. Congratulations. Waiting for the 1.5 rome version.
I've got some little questions: First cohorts with eagle bearers will be avaiable?
The naval system will be divided in transport and war ships? And naval fighting will become more interesting?
Siege weapons: scorps, onagers etc. how many for each unit?
Units attributes: Gaesatae are naked! why 5 points of armour?? I think that attributes must reflect realistic unit's equipment... For every faction or culture... maybe can be balanced with their defence skill or shield values...



1. Due to the 255 model limit and 500 units limits we can unfortunately not have many officers per faction or all desired units. However I plan to make a minimod once we have released 0.8 that adds marian and augustan first cohorts and the whole captured/lost mechanism back into the mod.

2. There will be cheaper unarmed transport ships in future but it is hardcoded if and how many units a ship can transport.

3. Still has to be balanced, current sugestions are around 8 for scorpions and 1-2 for heavy stone projectors. But it's somehwat tricky to balance since the number of engines stays the same for all unitsizes.

4. Gaesatae armour values are reflecting their helmet with Cheek Guards ( 4 points), not sure where No. 5 comes from. The values for each piece of equippment are the same for all factions.




Also have it so that Roman Generals cannot become governers and Roman Governers cannot become generals (or at least without a trait).


The strict division between military and civil duties for leading officials of the state was a very alien concept for most of roman history. Republican and principate gouvernors usually commanded all troops in their provinces.

[Corinthian Hoplite]

The 5th armour point probably comes from any bracers or greaves they wear

[C.LVCIANVS]

The 5th armour point probably comes from any bracers or greaves they wear
ERR...:sweatdrop:
Sorry, maybe I didn't count the armour upgrades that time... but now I understand the unit's defence system... 4 points per helmet, great..:idea2: !
Ok, seeing the other's unit equipment all becomes clear... :2thumbsup:
Thanks!:laugh4:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Ludens]

Hello Matthius, it would be great if your ideas could be implemented, but unfortunatly they cannot. There is only so much modders can do. However, the EB team has worked on a more complex senate (through character traits).

[MSB]

This was origionally posted by Cunctator

The strict division between military and civil duties for leading officials of the state was a very alien concept for most of roman history. Republican and principate governors usually commanded all troops in their provinces.
What I meant was that the goveners could command troops yet were stationary in the province that they were elected for hence for they could not move and only command troops in that province. To conquer other lands a general would be needed to command troop away from the borders.

Oh well if my ideas can't work then I will forward them to the CA. They will probably say no but hey there is a tiny chance and when I say tiny I mean tiny! Hopefully they will take them on!

Oh and finally can I request the CA website adress please. They may have contact infomation on it.

[Markus_Aurelius]

I dont belive that what you say is entirely impossible. I know that in RTR (I hat comparing RTR with EB) the rebel generals had a trait were they could not leave there cities, because it took there movement points away. So what if you give a trait the takes away a generals movement points when you leave him as governor of the city for.....lets say a 3-5 years or something. This way governors can only be governors of there province and they can only command a garrison. That means that generals generally stay in the field and governors do not become generals.

[Sdragon]

I can see it being really annoying losing your generals this way. Getting them stuck when you need them elsewhere. I can just imagine all those family members in the academy in Rome I always forget about end up being stuck there permanently.

[Foot]

I dont belive that what you say is entirely impossible. I know that in RTR (I hat comparing RTR with EB) the rebel generals had a trait were they could not leave there cities, because it took there movement points away. So what if you give a trait the takes away a generals movement points when you leave him as governor of the city for.....lets say a 3-5 years or something. This way governors can only be governors of there province and they can only command a garrison. That means that generals generally stay in the field and governors do not become generals.


The strict division between military and civil duties for leading officials of the state was a very alien concept for most of roman history. Republican and principate gouvernors usually commanded all troops in their provinces.

So though it can be done. No.

Remember, history first.

Foot

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I know that in RTR (I hat comparing RTR with EB) the rebel generals had a trait were they could not leave there cities, because it took there movement points away. Haven't we done that since our first release, after we got tired of seeing the rebel generals leave their cities and hide in the countryside?

[Markus_Aurelius]

all i am trying to do is just say that it can be doen, i personally wouldnt enjoy losing my generals this way either

[Darkarbiter]

I dont belive that what you say is entirely impossible. I know that in RTR (I hat comparing RTR with EB) the rebel generals had a trait were they could not leave there cities, because it took there movement points away. So what if you give a trait the takes away a generals movement points when you leave him as governor of the city for.....lets say a 3-5 years or something. This way governors can only be governors of there province and they can only command a garrison. That means that generals generally stay in the field and governors do not become generals.


Dont we have bored traits which is the complete oppisite for this?

[paullus]

i didn't even know rtr had included that trait, i don't recall it from earlier releases.

i would say the movement penalty from becoming an "attuned gov" is a nice middlish ground, i wouldn't want to see it taken any further.

[Markus_Aurelius]

What i would really like to see in the upcoming release is a bigger effect of climate on all units. An army of the Aedui would never stand a chance in a desert region when fighting the desert folke. As it is right now you could do as you please and you wouldnt notice a thing. Also desert warriors owning germans in the snow is not realistic.....

I made this post a long while back in this thread but not one person made a comment on it so i decided i would repost it. If you dont want to put this in can you at least tell me if it is possible (i am fairly sure it is).

[Ludens]

What i would really like to see in the upcoming release is a bigger effect of climate on all units. An army of the Aedui would never stand a chance in a desert region when fighting the desert folke. As it is right now you could do as you please and you wouldnt notice a thing. Also desert warriors owning germans in the snow is not realistic.....
Well, I don't know. The Ptolemaics were pretty keen on importing Galatians, who were essentially Gauls. Also the Romans seemed to do pretty well, whether they fought in the North African desert or the German forrests. Humans are very adaptable creatures than can thrive (and fight) under a variety of circumstances. However, it should be possible to add this feature through traits or through the wood, snow and desert combat modifiers.

[Obelics]

hallo, ive just becoming to find this problem annoing only now, after long playing EB:

i noticed, after a long time of enjoying play, that the two only unit that appear in the loading screen are always the corte reformata and the casse unit with scale bronze armour, are you planning of adding new units? it should be very nice, and im very courious to know how much "unit-loading-screen" have you ready (and if you have)

know this could be ridicoulous with all the new stuff are going to be relased in 0.8, but two units as i sayd are too few after a while...

thanks

[MSB]

The strict division between military and civil duties for leading officials of the state was a very alien concept for most of roman history. Republican and principate gouvernors usually commanded all troops in their provinces.

Like I have said ONCE already I mean that the Pro-Consul goveners would command troops in the province and the settlement but not command any troops else where. I read somewhere on Wikipedia that Pro-Consul (Goveners) would stay in thier province(s) and command the garrisons and troops there YET not any where else. I also read somewhere critisising RTW accurucy saying that Provinces would rarley be ruled by the generals that captured them however some generals (such as Gaius Julius Ceaser) would have. That is what I meant.

[C.LVCIANVS]

Well, I don't know. The Ptolemaics were pretty keen on importing Galatians, who were essentially Gauls. Also the Romans seemed to do pretty well, whether they fought in the North African desert or the German forrests. Humans are very adaptable creatures than can thrive (and fight) under a variety of circumstances. However, it should be possible to add this feature through traits or through the wood, snow and desert combat modifiers.
~:joker:
Very interesting!
Maybe it's possible to add traits, moral bonus or experience to generals or troops who fought in different climates in many campaigns. A veteran unit composed by soldiers who fought in germania and also north africa would be more skilled, resistant and adaptable than inexpert recruits at their first campaign far away their homeland; A man who saw enemies like elephants and bezerkers during his career won't get panicking in front of chariots. He knows that only gods are invincible.:skull:
:laugh4: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Markus_Aurelius]

i just did some tinkering with the export descr unit txt file and ajusted the combat bonuses for each faction. I made the Greeks(Koinon and macedin) and Romans rather decent in all categorys but they were not extreme in either one. The gauls were good in woods and snow as well as brits. All desert factions of course were better fighters in deserts. I made the germans and the Dacians Very good at fighting in the forests. The sarmatians were rather well rounded, a little better than greeks and romans in snow but everything else was much the same. Carthage was better in was also well rounded but its winter fighting is poorer than the romans and greeks. The iberians were much the same as the Carthaginians but with less desert capabilities and better snow, forest and shrub. Oh yeah i also the romans a little better in plain grassy territory. It only makes sense that a faction would be the best suited to the terrain in its home province. The gauls did have great problems with the heat when they arrived in asia minor and did not adapt for quite some time. I think that it may be better to portray this trough traits. Well that is of course if you are willing to spend the extra time to do these things. I am capable of modding these things myself so i wont be to dissapointed if they were not included:2thumbsup:

[Gruver]

A cavalry unit charge should break up the formation but at a high loss in troops.

[paullus]

it sounds like an interesting idea to make more variation in climate combat abilities, but this:


The gauls did have great problems with the heat when they arrived in asia minor and did not adapt for quite some time.

is not true, at least as far as we know historically. i'd be interested to know where you came up with this--a book, an article, a guess? you are aware that it is regularly hotter in parts of gaul (especially factoring in humidity) than in central anatolia or northern greece?

and as another note, i might give the heavier plain grass bonus to the greeks instead of the romans, because of the assistance terrain could give to the cohesion and mobility of a phalanx.

[Slartibardfast]

Units attributes: Gaesatae are naked! why 5 points of armour?? I think that attributes must reflect realistic unit's equipment... For every faction or culture... maybe can be balanced with their defence skill or shield values...


Not a bad point!

Last night I had to deal with a two Gaesatae unit rebel army.

Three units of cavalry used all their javelins on them, and my unit of archers used all their arrows on them.

The only casuality either rebel unit suffered (ie: 1 ) before hand to hand was when my own Gaestatae unit lobbed their javelins before charging.

600 odd javelins and 350 odd arrows into 121 drugged up naked men and 1 casualty.

In 15 years as a professional Musician I never had any drug that good!

[MSB]

This is probably the first ever time I have said anything possible in all of my posts on this thread. So would it be possible to give the Roman (post-Marius)Army a combat penelty in forests all desert factions combat peneltys in woods and snow and all non desert factions combat peneltys in desert.

[Simmons]

Not a bad point!

Last night I had to deal with a two Gaesatae unit rebel army.

Three units of cavalry used all their javelins on them, and my unit of archers used all their arrows on them.

The only casuality either rebel unit suffered (ie: 1 ) before hand to hand was when my own Gaestatae unit lobbed their javelins before charging.

600 odd javelins and 350 odd arrows into 121 drugged up naked men and 1 casualty.

In 15 years as a professional Musician I never had any drug that good!
Sounds like you have the difficulty up high it tends to create this sort of unrealistic warfare.

[Markus_Aurelius]

it sounds like an interesting idea to make more variation in climate combat abilities, but this:



is not true, at least as far as we know historically. i'd be interested to know where you came up with this--a book, an article, a guess? you are aware that it is regularly hotter in parts of gaul (especially factoring in humidity) than in central anatolia or northern greece?

Well to tell you the truth, my sources are very very bad,:no: I actually got this idea from one of the old loading screen quotes from the Orriginal RTW or from RTR (I can remember). It read "And the gauls were, above all else, Distressed by the thirst and the heat" or something like that. I porbably should subtract my statement, but I still stand by the fact that it would be a very difficult change, gauls fought bare chest in winter so it would have taken them some time to get used to. People do adjust, no doubt, but it wouldn't have been easy. Sorry for the inconvenience, but oh yeah it was some famous historian guy who said that up there Tacitus or something.

Next time I will do a little more research, and ill take into account the greek grass bonus.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

hallo, ive just becoming to find this problem annoing only now, after long playing EB:

i noticed, after a long time of enjoying play, that the two only unit that appear in the loading screen are always the corte reformata and the casse unit with scale bronze armour, are you planning of adding new units? it should be very nice, and im very courious to know how much "unit-loading-screen" have you ready (and if you have)

know this could be ridicoulous with all the new stuff are going to be relased in 0.8, but two units as i sayd are too few after a while...

thanks
We do have a lot of new ones - but not any new unit ones I'm afraid. Yet. When we finally get all the new units in and I can get someone to provide (1) some good high quality renders of the units and (2) some of the faction representatives and historians to provide the text descriptions, I'll be more than happy to get plenty more loading screens in (possibly as an add on - so as not to weigh the mod itself down for download times).

[Obelics]

good the idea to have some "expansion packs" for EB, hope that after 0.8 there will be a lot of this thinks coming out... thanks

[Fondor_Yards]

i noticed, after a long time of enjoying play, that the two only unit that appear in the loading screen are always the corte reformata and the casse unit with scale bronze armour, are you planning of adding new units? it should be very nice, and im very courious to know how much "unit-loading-screen" have you ready (and if you have)

know this could be ridicoulous with all the new stuff are going to be relased in 0.8, but two units as i sayd are too few after a while...

thanks

Carnute Cingetos*A celtic warrior-druid* and Bactrian Agema*elite Bactrian form of the hypaspistai* also have their own loading screen. You must just have really bad luck with your screens if you havn't seen them yet :2thumbsup:

[Obelics]

AH my head! Bactrian Agema! you're right, anyway i intended about 2 dozen of unit at last, so to have a more varied reading... I know im pretending to much now, ok better to skip to silent mode...:juggle2:

[C.LVCIANVS]

Well to tell you the truth, my sources are very very bad,:no: I actually got this idea from one of the old loading screen quotes from the Orriginal RTW or from RTR (I can remember). It read "And the gauls were, above all else, Distressed by the thirst and the heat" or something like that. I porbably should subtract my statement, but I still stand by the fact that it would be a very difficult change, gauls fought bare chest in winter so it would have taken them some time to get used to. People do adjust, no doubt, but it wouldn't have been easy. Sorry for the inconvenience, but oh yeah it was some famous historian guy who said that up there Tacitus or something.

Next time I will do a little more research, and ill take into account the greek grass bonus.

:juggle2:
I think the problem is not only different climate, but sun:sweatdrop: . Probably big blond naked men from Gaul, with light blue eyes and white skin had some difficulties under the sicilian lowland canicula...:laugh4:
We know that Dionysus, tyrant of Syracuse, used effectively celtic mercenaries during his campaigns, and soon carthaginians... Also if mediterranean people was better adapted in fighting in that climate...
:idea2: Maybe celts used olive oil for sunbathing?:laugh4:


Another question/suggest:
HASTATI- why called so? in all the games they don't use the "hasta"! Principes and triarii has, but they no... Why? They form the first line, adsorb the assault, but use only pila and swords... And cavalry? How to stop it?
:no: Personally I use principes in first line, they are more versatile; hastati form the second line, to support and charge where needs... Triarii back or on the sides to prevent encirclement or last defense...
Why everyone in mods, or in RTW vanilla, put hastati without hasta???:help:
Maybe historically they didn't have it, but at least I need an explanation by someone who knows...:book:
Sorry for my ignorance....:embarassed:
I would not change my camillian battle formation till early hastati won't have an hasta (+bonus against cavalry) instead of early principes (they are better for melee, with better armour and skill than hastati...):wall:
The polibians for me are perfect as they are now.:2thumbsup:

:laugh4: Thanks to everybody for any answer!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Obelics]

the name hastati means they had an "Hasta" a spear [una lancia] in the origin (about IV century), but then the army had a development, and they changed, but their name remained.

Also, principes (the firsts) means there was a time when they fought in the first line, as the actual Hastati), while Triari, are also called "Pilari" that means there was a time they carried a "pilum" with them, but as i sayd, they evolved in a different manner...

[C.LVCIANVS]

the name hastati means they had an "Hasta" a spear [una lancia] in the origin (about IV century), but then the army had a development, and they changed, but their name remained.

Also, principes (the firsts) means there was a time when they fought in the first line, as the actual Hastati), while Triari, are also called "Pilari" that means there was a time they carried a "pilum" with them, but as i sayd, they evolved in a different manner...
GRAZIE CUMPA'!!!!!!!!!!:laugh4: :laugh4:
THANK YOU!~:cheers: ~:wave:
~:joker: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Obelics]

De nìsba amìgo! (di niente)

also some fonts talk about hastati regarding gladiators, but commentors are still debating if they refers to a unique kind of gladiator using the Hasta, or just a "variant" of the Thracian type of gladiator...

[NeoSpartan]

:juggle2:
I think the problem is not only different climate, but sun:sweatdrop: . Probably big blond naked men from Gaul, with light blue eyes and white skin had some difficulties under the sicilian lowland canicula...:laugh4:
We know that Dionysus, tyrant of Syracuse, used effectively celtic mercenaries during his campaigns, and soon carthaginians... Also if mediterranean people was better adapted in fighting in that climate...
:idea2: Maybe celts used olive oil for sunbathing?:laugh4:


I think it should be left like a it is. The only thing I would change is for Native Desert units to have a SLIGHT advante in fighting on SAND.

Where is why:
You see, for a big, blond, blue eyed, Celt to get to Sicilly, he either had to
A: Hike there B: Sail there.

These 2 modes of transportation take TIME. Thus it gives the Celt enought time to get aclimated and get a Tan. U see, it only takes 1 afternoon to get a REALLY BAD sun burn, then it takes 3 days for the pain to go away, after that you are GOOD TO GO! ~:) (and as long and you don't spend an extended period of time Away from the sun, you WON'T get burned again) Also, this time CONDITIONS the Celt's body to function normally under increased temperatures.

There are 3 main things that affect a soldiers ability to fight in the Desert:
1- H20!!!! The most important of all. The Isrealy Army figured out that to have its soldier march through the desert and not get dehidrated they soldiers needed to drink 1 Liter of H2O every 1 mile (or close to that).

2- ARMOR!! It traps heat, and if its metal it will conduct the outside heat inside (so yeah you are LITERALLY being cooked)

3- Aclimation. But after a few weeks the soldier is Good to GO.

What I really see affecting the ability to fight is TERRAIN, (moreover, becoming GOOD at fighting in that TERRAIN)
-Fighting in the Snow is not just a matter of getting aclimated and having proper clothing. A soldiers needs to TRAIN to fight in that terrain. (As you know, walking/running/manuvering is at LOT harder to do in snow than in grass) And TRAINNING to become as good as a Native Snow fighter takes a LONG time.
-The same goes for fighting in Wooded areas.
-Sand??? Maybe..... Sand its not that different than grass when it comes to walking/running/manuvering.

my 2 cents to version .8 :2thumbsup:

[kambiz]

Hello EB team;
Have you changed (OR do you have plan to change) "Advisor's images" for some factions in your mod? For instance ,I think "Pahlava" needs to be changed its "Advisor's images" both in Campaign map and Battle map.

-Kambiz

[Foot]

Hello EB team;
Have you changed (OR do you have plan to change) "Advisor's images" for some factions in your mod? For instance ,I think "Pahlava" needs to be changed its "Advisor's images" both in Campaign map and Battle map.

-Kambiz

Yup, I believe that both have been changed for all factions to something much more suitable. Be not afraid, TA is very thorough when it comes to his GUIs :grin:

Foot

[oscar.k]

i tink when mtw2 coming out we must go to that new system to
make a better game o you get no support from gamers any more
and then your dead how you will du it i dont now but start whit it
in dec 2006 and the firts game must come out 2007 maart

[Foot]

i tink when mtw2 coming out we must go to that new system to
make a better game o you get no support from gamers any more
and then your dead how you will du it i dont now but start whit it
in dec 2006 and the firts game must come out 2007 maart

We have no plans to move to MTW2, nor do we believe that its release will cause there to be no more players willing to play EB. MTW1 mods still get playtime even now, and this is deliciously more ambitious than any of them.

Foot

[cunctator]

However that does not mean there will never by a EB 2 for M:TW2 we just have no plans for it as long as M:TW2 isn't released and EB 1 unfinished.

[Tellos Athenaios]

2- ARMOR!! It traps heat, and if its metal it will conduct the outside heat inside (so yeah you are LITERALLY being cooked)

That's why cataphracts are called cataphracts. From the Greek transcription of the Persion word for oven.


-Sand??? Maybe..... Sand its not that different than grass when it comes to walking/running/manuvering.

Sand is very diffrent to grass in the situations mentioned above: if you've ever been to a beach you'll know why - and then you probably weren't wearing armour, were you?

Maybe your suggestions can be incorporated through traits and hangers on? Like the desert scout?

[paullus]

Is there any possibility of installing "looting" after major battles through scripting or traits? So there's a heroic victory with a certain threshold of enemy casualties, you get some sort of loot bonus at the beginning of the next turn? Possible?

[Ludens]

That's why cataphracts are called cataphracts. From the Greek transcription of the Persion word for oven.
Aren't you confusing it with Clibinarii? IIRC cataphract just meant armoured.

[NeoSpartan]

....
Sand is very diffrent to grass in the situations mentioned above: if you've ever been to a beach you'll know why - and then you probably weren't wearing armour, were you?

Maybe your suggestions can be incorporated through traits and hangers on? Like the desert scout?

Ur right, its actually preatty different.

I think numidian javerlins/cavarly could be on of those units with a Bonus fighting on sand. I also like the traints for Generals.

[Simmons]

Ur right, its actually preatty different.

I think numidian javerlins/cavarly could be on of those units with a Bonus fighting on sand. I also like the traints for Generals.There would have to be some sort of research into horse training technics I know that Australian light horse conducted training for WW1 on beaches to get used to sand and that sort of thing nothing to stop any of the mediterranean powers doing the same 1000's of years earlier if they knew they would be conducting a war in those conditions.

[Slartibardfast]

I think it should be left like a it is. The only thing I would change is for Native Desert units to have a SLIGHT advante in fighting on SAND.

Where is why:
You see, for a big, blond, blue eyed, Celt to get to Sicilly, he either had to
A: Hike there B: Sail there.

These 2 modes of transportation take TIME. Thus it gives the Celt enought time to get aclimated and get a Tan. U see, it only takes 1 afternoon to get a REALLY BAD sun burn, then it takes 3 days for the pain to go away, after that you are GOOD TO GO! ~:) (and as long and you don't spend an extended period of time Away from the sun, you WON'T get burned again) Also, this time CONDITIONS the Celt's body to function normally under increased temperatures.

There are 3 main things that affect a soldiers ability to fight in the Desert:
1- H20!!!! The most important of all. The Isrealy Army figured out that to have its soldier march through the desert and not get dehidrated they soldiers needed to drink 1 Liter of H2O every 1 mile (or close to that).

2- ARMOR!! It traps heat, and if its metal it will conduct the outside heat inside (so yeah you are LITERALLY being cooked)

3- Aclimation. But after a few weeks the soldier is Good to GO.

What I really see affecting the ability to fight is TERRAIN, (moreover, becoming GOOD at fighting in that TERRAIN)
-Fighting in the Snow is not just a matter of getting aclimated and having proper clothing. A soldiers needs to TRAIN to fight in that terrain. (As you know, walking/running/manuvering is at LOT harder to do in snow than in grass) And TRAINNING to become as good as a Native Snow fighter takes a LONG time.
-The same goes for fighting in Wooded areas.
-Sand??? Maybe..... Sand its not that different than grass when it comes to walking/running/manuvering.

my 2 cents to version .8 :2thumbsup:

For a modern historical perspective the 9th Div 2AIF as part of the British 8th Army in North Africa spent months in Jordan and Palestine doing garrison before joining the main force for the drive against the Italians.

It wasn't so much acclimatising to the heat, like it can get pretty hot just about anywhere Down Under. Australia being a 90% urban population since Confederation, it was all more for about aclimatising to the terrain and people and something to stretch those legs after the long boat ride.

[Slartibardfast]

Is there any possibility of installing "looting" after major battles through scripting or traits? So there's a heroic victory with a certain threshold of enemy casualties, you get some sort of loot bonus at the beginning of the next turn? Possible?

I've thought this myself.

It would make the difficulty of the early stages more user friendly if when you won a major victory a small cash injection via battlefield loot decreased your debt just that little bit.

I had always believed that one of Caesars main reason for wanting to pacify Gaul was all those gold Gallic torcs and Germanic armbands available from freshly butchered locals in order to payoff his debt earned as Ponifex Maximus, and battles have been won and lost due to troops going for the baggage, Nasby being a good example, so it makes sense historically.

It would add another game dynamic were raiding is more viable to occupation in the early stages. Real tribal warfare for barbarian factions and fund raising events for the civilized ones.

Also it would be nice to just sack a city and leave the devastated ruins still under the control of its original owners. It's probably hardcoded though.

[paullus]

well, you can sack a city and then leave it behind, and it usually reverts back to the original owner's control in a few turns.

and kataphraktos does essentially mean "heavily fortified" and I think it does have some connection to the construction of ovens, or at least that's a popular myth associated with it. It could just as easily (and perhaps more likely) be derived from kata-phrassw, which translates to "heavily fortified/armored."

[Markus_Aurelius]

Bonus's should also be given for snow because snow is also ALOT Different than grass, it is much like sand in a way but most of the time you do not sink in sand.....

[NeoSpartan]

Bonus's should also be given for snow because snow is also ALOT Different than grass, it is much like sand in a way but most of the time you do not sink in sand.....

There already is.
There is bonus for fighting in the Woods and Winter for Barbarian Factions.

[Markus_Aurelius]

ok, sorry for bothering the masses with my ranting

[swqrd]

It is possible to make men in phanalax formation run at all rather than constantly walking, because when hoplites attacked eachother they used to run into eachother but still keeping their line, so i guess the run still msut have been fairly slow.

[Darkarbiter]

In RTW1.5 hoplites are no longer in phalanx formation and they can run.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Playing as Koinon Hellenon, I noticed something rather odd: Sparte has a Type 1 government, Kydonia can have the same, but Athens doesn't! :shame:

It can however be relatively easily solved. What about changing the Government system for Koinon Hellenon a little: something like Type 1 being an own 'independent' polis an member of the 'league', Type 2 being a conquered settlement that has been granted 'independance' in return for loyalty to the 'league', Type 3 being an 'ordinary' conquered settlement, Type 4 being like an semi independant colony?

If you want to keep the Agoge system, you might turn this into a separate building, instead of a Government system. And seeing that the original Spartan government system (being remarkably similair to the Roman one, if not being exactly the same, and being the ancient example of an perfect system) wasn't all that diffrent from most other poleis. (An ekklesia, a gerousia, and ephoroi.) If you are, for some reason, unable to turn the Agoge into a building: what about turning it into a (hidden) resource?

Hope the Athenians get their own polis back again! Surely they are part of the Patris Hellados!

[Slartibardfast]

Pehaps there's a case for a few possible traits in post 0.8.

Ones that are generational and added to Generals who are responsible for/survive battlefield/siege massacres. 26% chance of the guys kids and grand kids developing some kind of PTSD from being brought up by the guy. Same as is the case for Vietnam Veterans Children.

Various levels of insecurities, paranoia, ferocity, violence, suicide attempts and associated psychological disorders. Combining with some earnt traits, and "giving syphallis to your first cousin"as the Black Adder put it, for the chance of your faction developing its' very own sadistically insane "Little Boot" four generations down the track?

Ahhhhh! The possabilities for internal assasination/civil war !:juggle2: :inquisitive: :laugh4:


This could be done....it would be somewhat easy to implement too. Your mention of syphilis gave me another idea though: why not create traits for various diseases, like syphilis, diphteria, leprosy, pneumonia, etc.? The chances of infection could be related to sanitary conditions in settlements, long sieges, poorly supplied troops and so on. Heck, I think I would be able to code them myself. :2thumbsup:

From the "Emperor has married a horse" thread

[Bonny]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before:

It isn't afaik possible to have a clean Custom/MP Army Selection Screen. Well it's sort of messed up because of the EB recruitment system.
Is it possible to have an additional EB "install" with balanced stats (if needed) and cleaned army selection for Multiplayer. Using the mymod feature from RTW 1.5 (one shortcut SP and one MP, like many full price Games have it, too) it shouldn't take to much hd space.

[Krusader]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before:

It isn't afaik possible to have a clean Custom/MP Army Selection Screen. Well it's sort of messed up because of the EB recruitment system.
Is it possible to have an additional EB "install" with balanced stats (if needed) and cleaned army selection for Multiplayer. Using the mymod feature from RTW 1.5 (one shortcut SP and one MP, like many full price Games have it, too) it shouldn't take to much hd space.

What you mention is something we have always wanted at EB, but not had the manpower to do, even though we have recruited people for that task.
It will be done, but the main focus for EB will be single-player and we want that done. However, seeing as the next EB is likely going to run on a -mod basis, we might include a seperate install and shortcut for a MP part.

[Bonny]

Good to hear, and thanks for the Short reply :2thumbsup:

[-Praetor-]

Playing as Koinon Hellenon, I noticed something rather odd: Sparte has a Type 1 government, Kydonia can have the same, but Athens doesn't! :shame:

It can however be relatively easily solved. What about changing the Government system for Koinon Hellenon a little: something like Type 1 being an own 'independent' polis an member of the 'league', Type 2 being a conquered settlement that has been granted 'independance' in return for loyalty to the 'league', Type 3 being an 'ordinary' conquered settlement, Type 4 being like an semi independant colony?

If you want to keep the Agoge system, you might turn this into a separate building, instead of a Government system. And seeing that the original Spartan government system (being remarkably similair to the Roman one, if not being exactly the same, and being the ancient example of an perfect system) wasn't all that diffrent from most other poleis. (An ekklesia, a gerousia, and ephoroi.) If you are, for some reason, unable to turn the Agoge into a building: what about turning it into a (hidden) resource?

Hope the Athenians get their own polis back again! Surely they are part of the Patris Hellados!

Hey, don`t forget this guy!

I thing that his ideas are rather interesting...

Are you going to keep the agoge type 1 government system in the build, or switch it to a more "common" greek system that can incluide more citys???

[Teleklos Archelaou]

The type1 govts for KH are special - take a look at the KH walkthrough in the gameplay guides, or read the descriptions in game. For the KH most of their units are available in type2 govts - which are available in a wide range. Actually it is a benefit to Kh more than a hindrance. We want to limit the places though where those spartiates can be built though, and we also want to restrict type1's in some respect (cultural) where we can. So it's not really a mistake, just a govt system that doesn't work quite the same way the others do. Don't think of it as KH being restricted, but being given better type2's.

Anyway, more will change before we're through- if we really don't like the way things look in the next build we might switch it up.

[paullus]

Is Sparta itself getting a type 1 gov't at the get-go?

[-Praetor-]

Sparta has always had a type I government (Spartan agoge), since 0.72... :juggle2:

[Demivrgvs]

In RTW1.5 hoplites are no longer in phalanx formation and they can run.

I stop playing 1.5 long time ago because of RTR and EB so i don't remember...is it true? So in the next version hoplites are going to be normal spearmen?? :no:

[paullus]

Sparta has always had a type I government (Spartan agoge), since 0.72... :juggle2:

I know that, what I meant was that in a historical sense, its up for debate whether Sparta had the agoge installed in 272. If it did, it may not have been particularly comprehensive (which could be accurately modelled, I suppose, with a lower level MIC and type 1), but I kinda feel like it would be more fun to have a type 2, one level higher MIC, and a trait for Spartan family members of "potential reformer" for type 1 gov't in Sparta...something along those lines, to entice the player to take the time to intall the new gov't.

[Ludens]

In RTW1.5 hoplites are no longer in phalanx formation and they can run.

I stop playing 1.5 long time ago because of RTR and EB so i don't remember...is it true? So in the next version hoplites are going to be normal spearmen?? :no:
No, it isn't true for R:TW 1.5 vanilla, but it is in R:TR PE.

[NeoSpartan]

I stop playing 1.5 long time ago because of RTR and EB so i don't remember...is it true? So in the next version hoplites are going to be normal spearmen?? :no:

No its not true like LUDENS said.

BUT what can happen in 1.5 is that by doing some nifty trick in codes (which I don't know how to do), u can have Regular Spearmen punch through a Phalanx and wreak havoc. Or u can decrease that effect and have Spearmen survive a Phalanx (even penetrate it), better than Swordsmen.

[Demivrgvs]

Well...spearmen penetrating a phalanx easily??...i don't think EB team is going to do such a thing...

Anyway i was asking myself if there is a point in making Antesignani and Cohorte Evocata respectively blue and green...why aren't they just red as the other Roman units?

[Markus_Aurelius]

No its not true like LUDENS said.

BUT what can happen in 1.5 is that by doing some nifty trick in codes (which I don't know how to do), u can have Regular Spearmen punch through a Phalanx and wreak havoc. Or u can decrease that effect and have Spearmen survive a Phalanx (even penetrate it), better than Swordsmen.

This is not true either, it just gives phalanxe SPEARMEN (not pikemen) the Phalanx formation all the time, you do not have to press the phalanx button, and the phalanx can run and charge.

[MSB]

I think that in short family members should live out a much much much shorter life span. After all hygine wasn't in in those days, nobody knew anything about micro organsims (although some early scientists had a basic idea that invisible particals cause sickness) and nether did anybody know anything about the dangers of becoming over weight so they MUST have died younger. Of course there must have been exceptions Pepy II of the Egyptian Old Kingdom livedto be 120 and is still the longest ruling leader ever (I know,3000 years previously, but hey knowlage about health was about the same). So mabye new trait could be added such as "Rarley Baths" (decresing life span and influence) or "Never visits the Vomitariam" (meaning that at the end of the meal he rarley sicks up his food so he eats more than most hence causing him to be obese hence forth removing some of his life span) e.c.t. I know this would probably be impossible (nothing I say ever is possible) but would it be a good idea?

[eadingas]

The family members would get the best health service available, so they'd live pretty longer than the average citizen. Unless they were slain in battle or through assassination, they would get pretty decent lifespan results. The emperors of Antonine dynasty, for example, lived long after the age of 50, and even then they'd die in battle, assassin or of sudden illness.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Plus, we can't kill family members off (unless it's with a script at the very start of the game and we know their name). We would love to have injuries from a battle kill a family member a few seasons later, or have a hereditary illness that kills them, or even have a freak accident kill them (very very rarely), but we just can't do it - traits can't kill someone. They can get really sick and be immobile, and we could reduce hit points or bodyguard strength or whatever, but still we can't outright kill them - the game won't allow it.

[MSB]

Plus, we can't kill family members off (unless it's with a script at the very start of the game and we know their name). We would love to have injuries from a battle kill a family member a few seasons later, or have a hereditary illness that kills them, or even have a freak accident kill them (very very rarely), but we just can't do it - traits can't kill someone. They can get really sick and be immobile, and we could reduce hit points or bodyguard strength or whatever, but still we can't outright kill them - the game won't allow it.
Oh well. Can you make it so that you can get your own assasins to kill your own family members. It would sort out problems with VERY nasty generals whom are causing trouble. I know that if you station a spy in another settlement (not one of your own) you can send in an assasin to kill somebody and the spy appears on the hit list. It was actually historical for family feuds to end in assasinations of each other if they really dispised each other enough.
Oh an could you give the Roman portraits a little more Roman personality. They are identical to the Greek ones. Surley the Romans would not dress up like Greeks with the Corintian style helmet (particually when they went to war with them).

[Gaelic Rebel]

Give the men in the Goidilic Daernaght unit beards, they look like Romans:
https://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/goidilic_daernaght.gif

[Dram]

I'm not sure if this is intended or not, but I noticed that the Aedui/Arvernii Brihentin heavy cavalry has the armour piercing trait for their spears, while the faction leader generals, despite looking identical to the Brihentin, dont have the AP. I would of thought that if the faction had access to cavalry spears of good eneough quality to piece armour the leaders themselves would be using them. Its wierd because both the trainable non-general heavy cav and the generals bodyguard cavalry are both called Brihentin but have different stats.

edit- going through the unit.txt it seems as if the generals of certain factions also have the AP ability not only for their spears but also their swords. it just seems rather odd, i mean, why would a carthaginian general be able to pierce armour with his sword while an aedui cant?.

some examples-

aedui/arvenni general- no ap
carth- ap spear/sword
greek- ap spear
iberian- ap spear/sword
successor states- ap spear/sword.

[Demivrgvs]

I don't know if it's already in program but if you have acces to Prom's work why not make a good use of those magnificient Mauryan units?

[iberus_generalis]

i have a sugestion for 0.8 and later releases. it has to do with winter efects on troops and forts. my idea, is to add a script that causes casualties to armies that aren't in forts/cities during the winter in regions with colder climates...this would make players ponder on garrissoning armies in forts during the winter, so as to avoid significant casualties do to cold temperatures and hypothermia....the casualties would be small to mild, seeing % of an armie die do to cold would make players think twice before leaving troops spending the winter outside forts, and give a new utility to forts...my idea, i guess is logicl, cuz during history it hapenned to several armies to be almost wiped out do to low temperatures, Hannibal during his "mountain climbing Trip" to the Alps, Napoleon during his russian holiday at the Steppes, and Hitler's tourist trip to the same russian region...

[eadingas]

Such things are undoable with scripting.
We already have severe penalties for generals campaigning in wrong seasons, but that's about all we can do.

[Simmons]

I don't know if this can be done but either way I seriously doubt the AI would be able to handle it.

-Edit: Well there you have it. Can't be done

[iberus_generalis]

and what about using the unified animation pack i ear talking about around the community? i think it's not implemented yet, or is it?

[Eberhard]

Give the men in the Goidilic Daernaght unit beards, they look like Romans:
https://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/goidilic_daernaght.gif
I agree, and add a pair of bracas (plaid or single colored pants) under the tunic.

[Slartibardfast]

Give the men in the Goidilic Daernaght unit beards, they look like Romans:



I agree, and add a pair of bracas (plaid or single colored pants) under the tunic.

In Germanic, Gallic, Zulu, and many other tribal cultures to this day, what you wore (ie: clothing style and colour, emblems, plant badges etc:), how you wore it, and what you did with your hair and facial hair, denoted to every one within your society who you were, who you were associated with, what rank in the social hierachy you had attained and even if you were married or not.

For a modern example, (US Military and Administration take note) the positioning of the turban under or over the ears tells an observing Afghan if the wearer of the turban is Taliban or Mujahadeen.

I'm no expert in BCE Gaelic facial hair and clothing styles, my knowledge of this is limmited to reading english translated exerpts of the Coolie Cattle Raid and the Fionian Cycles.

I like the bracas idea! (Nothing says working class better than a pair of work shorts.)

I am sure the EB Gallic Faction co-ordinater will correct this if I am wrong, but boofy mustachios and beards defined an individual as one of the gallic warrior classes or aristocracy.

Lower classes were clean shaven.

If the goidilic_daernaght's name is Duffy (denoting swarthy, dark, black) he's perfect.

[Rex_Pelasgorum]

Most of the dacian units should wear theyr specific "thing" in theyr head (i dont know how to call it in english...)

More units for Dacia.... ~:)

[Eberhard]

In Germanic, Gallic, Zulu, and many other tribal cultures to this day, what you wore (ie: clothing style and colour, emblems, plant badges etc:), how you wore it, and what you did with your hair and facial hair, denoted to every one within your society who you were, who you were associated with, what rank in the social hierachy you had attained and even if you were married or not.

For a modern example, (US Military and Administration take note) the positioning of the turban under or over the ears tells an observing Afghan if the wearer of the turban is Taliban or Mujahadeen.

I'm no expert in BCE Gaelic facial hair and clothing styles, my knowledge of this is limmited to reading english translated exerpts of the Coolie Cattle Raid and the Fionian Cycles.

I like the bracas idea! (Nothing says working class better than a pair of work shorts.)

I am sure the EB Gallic Faction co-ordinater will correct this if I am wrong, but boofy mustachios and beards defined an individual as one of the gallic warrior classes or aristocracy.

Lower classes were clean shaven.

If the goidilic_daernaght's name is Duffy (denoting swarthy, dark, black) he's perfect.
Ah, the Cattle Raid of Cualgne, part of the Cuchullain tales. I read in "Celtic Warrior Chiefs", a book about certain Gaelic ("Celts" for those of you who use the Greek translated term) heroes and such, that even Irish Gaels wore mustaches similar to the Gauls. Im not sure if this is true, because maybe the author assumed this by example from the Gauls, assuming that Gaels were all connected in style of appearance, etc.

Bracas... I thought they were long pants that were held by belt at the waist and tight cord near the ankles, you know, the common Gaelic pants. I figured braecci and bracas were the same.

At that time Duffy would be Duibhne I believe, and yes you're right. Though I'd like a little more variation in looks instead of only dark black hair for the Irish Gaels. Of course when the Gauls recruit them they have red hair, but maybe some more Irish units to give better variety.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't know if it's already in program but if you have acces to Prom's work why not make a good use of those magnificient Mauryan units?

And what about his cities and grass?

Edit: what about enabling the possibility of building a level 3 military port in Attike?

[MSB]

I have notice while playing as Rome that Roman diplomats, spies and assasins have three names. Generally only important Roman Patricians (members of the upper class), people who the senate liked (for example some comedians) or people that had done great deeds for Rome would be allowed to use three names. Mabye the three names (for diplomats, spies and assasins) could be added as a trait mabye. A bit like you get (persons name) the Cunning or (person's name) the Liar. This trait could be acheived if if they get a certain ammount of subterferge/influence.

[Tanit]

I think that a great way to improve the game would be to make the eleutheroi greek colonies around the mediterranean very likely to join the Koinon Hellenon should they feel threatened. This would make those cities more difficult to capture, be realistic as those cities did often ask their home cities for aid, and give the Greek player a better chance at surviving. This could have great outcomes in the campaign such as if Syraceuse joined Koinon Hellenon, the other greek cities were taken and Syraceuse then continued to go on as an almost new faction to conquer sicily and Italy. This would allow the team to be historically accurate while making the greek colonies more characterful and almost making them factions in their own right.

[Tanit]

Also, a great minor wonder to include in Greece would be the military route that Alexander's pioneer corps cut through the rocky cliffs of Mt. Ossa. This happened when the nearest pass was barred by the Thessalians. I don't know exactly what it would do for the settlement, but it would be really cool to see it there.

[Ludens]

I have notice while playing as Rome that Roman diplomats, spies and assasins have three names. Generally only important Roman Patricians (members of the upper class), people who the senate liked (for example some comedians) or people that had done great deeds for Rome would be allowed to use three names. Mabye the three names (for diplomats, spies and assasins) could be added as a trait mabye. A bit like you get (persons name) the Cunning or (person's name) the Liar. This trait could be acheived if if they get a certain ammount of subterferge/influence.
I am afraid this won't work, as the title will usually replace the characters family name. In effect the character will lose his name, unles the EB traiters are willing to do a large amout of work to provide every Roman character with his own family-name traits.

[Kull]

I think that a great way to improve the game would be to make the eleutheroi greek colonies around the mediterranean very likely to join the Koinon Hellenon should they feel threatened. This would make those cities more difficult to capture, be realistic as those cities did often ask their home cities for aid, and give the Greek player a better chance at surviving. This could have great outcomes in the campaign such as if Syraceuse joined Koinon Hellenon, the other greek cities were taken and Syraceuse then continued to go on as an almost new faction to conquer sicily and Italy. This would allow the team to be historically accurate while making the greek colonies more characterful and almost making them factions in their own right.

This feature is already included. My last game as KH featured a revolt of Syracuse against Carthage, after which they joined my faction. Very cool!

[Demivrgvs]

I think it would be a great idea making lvl 4 and 5 accessibile only for important cities...that would means taking Rome is really different than taking a full growed Arretium... I've seen something like this in the metropolis mod...also building wall should be limited...what do you think?

[Krusader]

I think it would be a great idea making lvl 4 and 5 accessibile only for important cities...that would means taking Rome is really different than taking a full growed Arretium... I've seen something like this in the metropolis mod...also building wall should be limited...what do you think?

Well, core buildings are hardcoded so will be available to be built when population hits 12000 and 24000, although we are still looking at farming, growth rate etc. so cities which historically didnt, and logically couldnt grow to metropolises wont become ones.

MIC levels though will probably be available as to represent making border towns into fortresses.

And epic stone walls btw should be gone by 0.8.

[MSB]

Well, core buildings are hardcoded so will be available to be built when population hits 12000 and 24000, although we are still looking at farming, growth rate etc. so cities which historically didnt, and logically couldnt grow to metropolises wont become ones.

I like the idea of reducing growth rates (after all a village would never become a Huge City in 120 years like it did once when I was playing vannila). I also like the idea of making settlements grow faster if it's a capital. I read once that Ravenna (which was at one time a small town) grew to a large city when one Western Roman Emperor moved the capital from Rome to there. I also think Exterminations could be more devestating. e.g. Instead of killing 3/4 of the population killing 7/8 of the population.

[Tanit]

I like the idea of reducing growth rates (after all a village would never become a Huge City in 120 years like it did once when I was playing vannila). I also like the idea of making settlements grow faster if it's a capital. I read once that Ravenna (which was at one time a small town) grew to a large city when one Western Roman Emperor moved the capital from Rome to there. I also think Exterminations could be more devestating. e.g. Instead of killing 3/4 of the population killing 7/8 of the population.

I really wish that there was an opton between enslavement and extermination, so that you could either enslave, kill a small percentage of the population, or like MJ said, utterly annhialate a town

[basics]

Is it too late to suggest that before a siege the occupiers be given the option of withdrawing before a siege takes place thus saving the garrison and the attackers many men? I think this was the done thing in those days and it would be good for the game especially when short of troops in the area being attacked.
Yours,
basics.

[MSB]

Is it too late to suggest that before a siege the occupiers be given the option of withdrawing before a siege takes place thus saving the garrison and the attackers many men? I think this was the done thing in those days and it would be good for the game especially when short of troops in the area being attacked.
I like that idea (if I understand you correctly). I think you mean that the army can evacuate from a settlement if an atttacker attacks henceforth giving it to them. However I think that could be too simple. If the enemy is surrounding them where can they run? Mabye they could only do that if you have somebody with plenty of influence (lets say 6+) who could convince the enemy general that letting the army escape would be a very could idea. Mabye it could also help if the general is a bit selfless and hates battles so he will let them go to avoid having one.

[Ludens]

Is it too late to suggest that before a siege the occupiers be given the option of withdrawing before a siege takes place thus saving the garrison and the attackers many men? I think this was the done thing in those days and it would be good for the game especially when short of troops in the area being attacked.
I am afraid that's hardcoded. Can't be done.

[Zaknafien]

Salve, EB fans.. this is my first post even though Ive lingered on these forums and been a fan of EB from the start.. I'm a US soldier in Afghanistan so I dont get a chance to check up that often since Ive been over here nearly a year now, but now I have the chance, and I'm very impressed so far, and love EB and everything it stands for being a Classical History graduate myself ;)

Here's my humble suggestions, and I apologize if theyve been brought up before:

Ancilliaries for each Roman legion. (I Legio, II Legio, etc)?

How about Consuls get Lictors as Ancilliaries?

Would it be possible to have a pair of generals be named Dictator and Magister Equitium? perhaps they get it for only 2 turns (6 months) and recieve broad influence and command bonuses, and afterwards have a "former dictator" title?

I also hope that some of the great work Prometheus has done with the strat map may be included or something similar for ports, cities, diplomats, ships, etc.

Love the new resources map by the way, stellar work as always!

Being in a country like this gives me a fresh look at classical history and causes me to appreciate it more--the people here still live much like they did 2000 years ago, and the landscape is breathtaking. I actually live in a castle built by soldiers of Alexandros Magnos, (or the ruins of such, actually)!

[MSB]

Would it be possible to have a pair of generals be named Dictator and Magister Equitium? perhaps they get it for only 2 turns (6 months) and recieve broad influence and command bonuses, and afterwards have a "former dictator" title?


I like the idea of having a dictator office in state. This could perhaps only occur if the state has a crisis (like if Epeiros over runs Italy and Rome is down to only one pathetic province). Also at this time all senate offices could sort of close (meaning that they remain open, but offer less effective bonus')and perhaps if the dictator is powerfull enough he could declare himself a sole ruler (some dictators did that). Perhaps if this happened it could trigger a civil war between the dictator and the senate and perhaps parts of the republic that support the senate could turn rebel however if down to one province then they are stuck with a sole ruler if the dictator decides to call himself that.

[paullus]

you may want to change some charge distance and fire delay stats (i may be mis-stating these values). Darth put up some research he's done very recently on the way these stats affect AI behavior, and it sounds very interesting.

he's got a patch up to test the changes, but I don't have Darthmod 8 (out of room on my pc, what with all the installs I already have), so I haven't tested it. but if it works properly, sounds like some helpful changes.

[soibean]

This feature is already included. My last game as KH featured a revolt of Syracuse against Carthage, after which they joined my faction. Very cool!

I think the othe guy meant if they felt threatened... i.e. when a full army of pontic soldiers enters into the land surrounding sinope and the ratio is like 3 to 1 or greater, it rebels to the greeks because it knows it will lose if it fights
or some such
I think a huge army strength difference should be the factor that causes the cities to revert to the koinen hellenon

[Atreidis]

I think the othe guy meant if they felt threatened... i.e. when a full army of pontic soldiers enters into the land surrounding sinope and the ratio is like 3 to 1 or greater, it rebels to the greeks because it knows it will lose if it fights
or some such
I think a huge army strength difference should be the factor that causes the cities to revert to the koinen hellenon

I would love it if it could happen but I am afraid it will be hardcoded.

[Hister]

Hi EB team!

I'm a newbie here and maybe my questions were already answered to someone else. Since i haven't found (wasn't answered in TW center forums) answers to my questions I decided to post them here also.

I installed your mod recently and I really like what you have created (am a realism freak ). Your ideas are realy outstanding and add unimaginary better gameplay experience to the original game. Everything is just perfect (except unfinished icons for buildings and units, missing descriptions, ect. ofcourse) until you start battle. AI is very lame (archers attacking meele instead of firing bows, ...). Will this problem be adressed in 0.8? Since I read that you don't want to add any other mini mod (everything made solely by your team) I'm not shure if you will consider my suggestion: why not try to implement DarthVaders/Sinuhets formations or whatever exists to properly adress this?
It would spare developing team a lot of precious time I believe and would in process enable more effort to be put on finishing 0.8 version.

Can you maybe update me if you intend to adress "lame AI in battle" problem or it is going to be left out as it is in version 1.5?

Another question is about system requirements for your mod. Since you have implemented so much your mod runs very very slow on weaker PC's (it's very demanding). This is kind'a bad info for us who posses low end computers and can't afford to buy new hardware upgrades (or new computer). Yesterday I stumbled across new mod called Legion III made by modder GAY. This mod has great graphics and runs very smood also on weaker PC's.He is saying that he uses version 1.9 derrived from alexander. I don't know what this is all about but it would maybe be an interesting info for you to consider in future. You will find mentioned mod in mod threat forum.

I thank you in advance for your answers and also for all the hard work you put in the mod so that we can enjoy ourselves playing the game.

I really must encourage you to continue your amazing work - when finished it will probably be my favourite mod. :2thumbsup:

[eadingas]

We are investigating Darth's latest discoveries about foot archers. Can't say it will be implemented in 0.8 (if ever) but we'll do our best.
It's not as simple as transferring somebody elses stats to our mod, the stats of our units are carefully calculated and constructed, so before we do anything new with them we have to recalculate them, see which units to change and which not (for example, some of our "archer" units might actually prefer melee combat, historically) implement into internal tests, do internal testings, etc. etc. A lot of work, but I can assure you we keep track of things in the modding community as well as anyone :)

[MSB]

Hi EB team!
AI is very lame (archers attacking meele instead of firing bows, ...). Will this problem be adressed in 0.8? Can you maybe update me if you intend to adress "lame AI in battle" problem or it is going to be left out as it is in version 1.5?

It would probably not need asressing by the team anyway because RTW 1.5 is (supposed) to improve the AI drastically or at least this is what the CA claim. One site which you can download it from (I don't remember which) says that the AI now trys more flanking moves and also will have more sence as in not sending rubbish units (like archers) into melee.

[-Praetor-]

It would probably not need asressing by the team anyway because RTW 1.5 is (supposed) to improve the AI drastically or at least this is what the CA claim. One site which you can download it from (I don't remember which) says that the AI now trys more flanking moves and also will have more sence as in not sending rubbish units (like archers) into melee.

Yeah, but it doesn`t compare to Darth`s work.

It`s totally different, another dimension entirely.

Hope you get to implement his work on this mod.

[eadingas]

That is true, yes. 1.5 AI is way smarter than 1.2, although that still doesn't mean it's smart :) It will make better use of cavalry and perform some more complicated manouvres than you may be used to. Also, don't forget we do put some decent work into stuff like formations and unit stats on our own, so it's not like nothing has changed in the way battles are fought since vanilla :)

[Sarkiss]

And epic stone walls btw should be gone by 0.8.
finally!

[Imperator]

I don't know if this is written down somewhere else, but I figured it'd be better for me to ask here rather than start another topic. Will there still be peasant/barracks standing in for units or buildings or all the cards complete? I think that would go a long way towards destroyed EB's (undeserved) reputation as an unbearable incomplete or "buggy" game.

[eadingas]

Getting as many pics and descriptions in as possible is one of the reasons 0.8 is delayed so much. I'm not sure if we can get -all- of them, but there will be definitely less "peasants" and "barracks" on the map.
Don't forget that our final aim is to have somewhere about 500 (unit limit) new units, so that's a lot of "peasants" to replace :)

[Teleklos Archelaou]

fixing them very quickly with patches will be much easier too if we stick to this -mod format. If there are problems with buildings or units lacking icons or cards, we can quickly fix them and put corrections up that aren't packed.

[kambiz]

Hello frineds;
I think "Advisors images" for Pahlava need to be changed.You know that even those advisors images(Both in campaign and battle maps) in RTW:BI are not suitable and are not look like iranians (particularly parthians).

have you changed them ?Or do you have plan to change them?

Thank you EB team
-Kambiz

[Obelics]

from what i know 0.8 will have new interface for Pahlava (so new advisors faces too), but im not sure if they got the interface for "eastern" or for "nomadic" factions... anyway both have their new advisors.

[MSB]

I don't know if this is written down somewhere else, but I figured it'd be better for me to ask here rather than start another topic. Will there still be peasant/barracks standing in for units or buildings or all the cards complete? I think that would go a long way towards destroyed EB's (undeserved) reputation as an unbearable incomplete or "buggy" game.
Ten words. It's a BETA so of course it is not finished!

[Imperator]

Ten words. It's a BETA so of course it is not finished!
but EB has a reputation as a buggy or extremely incomplete game. It is not buggy, .74 has no CTD's that haven't been addressed and isn't that incomplete. Sure certain factions have peasants instead of unit cards and whatnot, but it really is more complete than people admit

[Discoskull]

I did a search and couldn't find anything of substance, so I appologize if this is mentioned somewhere else (you guys can just direct me there if it is).

Will the Iberians be beefed up in .8? I know they're not the most finished faction in EB, but will they have some more intimidating units at some point before 1.0? I'm playing as Casse (VH/H), and I know the Romani, Germans, and even the mainland Celts with their naked crackheads are not to be taken lightly.

The Iberians, however, aren't nearly as hard to fight as I thought they would be - I'm fighting both them and the Romani, and the Romani are, by far, the foe deserving the most attention...I made war on the Iberians simply to pay for the campaign over in Italy, and historically speaking, somebody would have to have a lot of nerve/power to take on a united Iberia.

(Of course, I've only had one major feild battle with them so far, so I could be eating my words in a couple game years...)

[Teleklos Archelaou]

They are working a lot more on Iberians now. They probably aren't going to be as ready as the other factions in 0.8, but they will be there by 1.0 if not by 0.9.

[Discoskull]

:2thumbsup:

[MSB]

They are working a lot more on Iberians now. They probably aren't going to be as ready as the other factions in 0.8, but they will be there by 1.0 if not by 0.9.
So there is going to be a 0.9 as well :shocked:!? So what will happen in 0.9. Will there be even more new units/buildings/faction/governments/traits or will it just be a more advanced version of 0.8. Also will 0.9 be on M2TW or will EB move to BI with emergant factions and rebellions. A little bit like RTR will do in 7.0?

[Ludens]

Also will 0.9 be on M2TW or will EB move to BI with emergant factions and rebellions. A little bit like RTR will do in 7.0?
I can't answer your questions about 0.9, but EB 1.0 will be on R:TW 1.5. Though there may come an unofficial EB-for-BI mod, the official version will stick to R:TW vanilla. Whether there will ever be an EB for M2:TW is an open question, but perhaps Ortus Romani (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=68561) will take that place. The OR team has several EB members, and Khelvan has suggested that the teams work together (I don't know if this cooperation got of the ground, though). EB won't implement R:TR's emergent faction system because fleshing out another twenty faction will be too much work.

[eadingas]

EB won't implement R:TR's emergent faction system because fleshing out another twenty faction will be too much work.

That's not really the reason. The reason is that having emergent factions would require getting rid of any of the existing ones. The faction limit is still the same, RTR is not really adding any new ones. We could have for example Baktria as emerging faction, but that would rid the players opportunity to play Baktria themselves, if I understand the BI system correctly.

[Ludens]

That's not really the reason. The reason is that having emergent factions would require getting rid of any of the existing ones. The faction limit is still the same, RTR is not really adding any new ones. We could have for example Baktria as emerging faction, but that would rid the players opportunity to play Baktria themselves, if I understand the BI system correctly.
Not all counterfactions in R:TR 7.0 will be emergent ones. For example Aedui and Averni will be each others counterfaction, but players can play either. Baktria will be a full fledged faction with the Saka as counterfaction IIRC, while the Seleucids' counter will be the Seleucid rebels. The Seleucid rebels won't be playable, as they are emergent.

[eadingas]

How does that work, exactly? I haven't really played BI. For example, the Seleucid rebels, are they a separate faction, do they take up a faction slot? I understand they do, but maybe I'm wrong here... What are "counterfactions" if they're not emergent ones?

[Musopticon?]

A batchfile that comes together with the faction of your choice, decides which faction uses the extra faction slot. For example, as Pontus you get Pergamon. You can also play as these counterfactions, unless it's unfeasable like the Seleucid pretenders.

[eadingas]

Oh yeah, the batch file. I forgot about that. So it's not really a BI-thing. That batch method could be used for any version of RTW, really...

[Tanit]

:idea2: Well, you guys asked for suggestions and I've got them for you.:idea2:

1. Should Baktria maybe start as a protectorate of Arche Seleukia? From what I've read of the history and when they came to power this would make more sense and would prevent them from overrunning Seleukia early on in the game. This would also justify giving them another province like Alexandropolis or something.

2. Islands. Only about a quarter of the islands in EB can be landed on. I would really appreciate it, and it shouldn't be too hard, if you would all the islands, or at least the ones larger than 1 square landable. Not only is this simply a cool feature but it has tactical uses. First of all, having watchtoers on your islands would allow you to see enemy ships approaching and having forts on islands close to the shore would help as I've found out that the more garrisoned forts you have throughout a province, or series of close provinces, the fewer rebels appear. This could also result in cool and characterful events like the AI sacking a fort or tower you built on an Island, or two AI factions fighting over a seemingly insignificant island, like malta, and also to Eleutheroi appearing on islands to represent emergent cities/nations.

3. I know the EB team has enough to think about already, but is there a possibility of making new faction specific intro videos in the future? If not 0.8 then perhaps .9 or 1.0? If someone would be kind enough to hand me a script and tell me how to make videos for the factions then I would gladly do so. I'm not too bad with accents and I could send the EB team what I made for criticism.

4. OK, this is the long one, so for those of you with short attention spans you might just want to skip this.

THOUGHTS ABOUT THE ROMANS

Most of this you most likely already have but I have to mention all of it in case in guessing I missed something that you don't have. Some of this could be used for other factions most likely but that is up to the EB team. I was just reading a book on Roman culture and society and I had a few thoughts.

Roman Ethinicity.
I believe that this should be divided into several sections that all affect the traits of a character based on the levels and ethnicity of the Romans historically.
Class 1 - Freedperson
- Freeperson
Class 2 - citizen
- non-citizen
Class 3 - Honestiores
- Humiliores
Class 4 - Patrician
- Patrician Senatores
- Equite/Equestrian
- Equite/Equestrian Senatores
- Plebeian
- Plebeian Nobiles
Class 5 -Latinae
- Latinae Romani
- Etruscan
- Samnite
- Greek(colonial descendant)
- Lucanian
- Messapian
- Sicilian
- Gaul(Northern Italy)
- Possibly others once Rome expands outside of Italy
Class 1 represents the status of the person or their parents concering slavery. Obviously most every family member would be a freeperson but it was possible for freedpersons(ex-slaves) or their offspring to rise in Roman society naturally or by adoption.
Class 2 represents whether a character was a Roman citizen or not. As with class 1 most every character would be a citizen but bribed characters would be immediately stated to be non-citizens and could only change that to citizenship through their deeds or time spent in Italy
Class 3 states whether they were in the upper or lower end of society. this division is usually seen as the difference between plebs and patricians but a Plebeian Nobiles(Like the Neaveue Riche in France) would be Honestiores(high end) and a poor Patrician could conceivably drop into the ranking of Humiliores(Low end). This end represented how they were treated by other Romans and what kind of punishments they were given for their crimes. As punishments for Honestiores would be less severe they would be more likely to develop vices than humiliores. But a characters status in this category could be altered conceivably by wealth.
Class 4 is the one that EB currently uses but it could be expanded. From the bottom up there are your normal Plebeians, your rich plebeians(Plebeians Nobiles) who are almost as powerful as Patricians/Equestrians, your equites, your equites senatores who are old equites that are no longer eligible for military service and now run for senatorial office(could be a trait gained by equites), the regular patricians who held jobs like lawers and judges and priests, and the Patrician senatores who are patricians that run for senatorial office. Also included here could be magistrates and their individual positions but that is more a matter of election than birth and age like the rest of these.
Class 5 deals with actual ethnicity. Listed above are just some examples of the many ethnicities to be found in Italy alone. I have not listed all of the possible ethnicities as I don't know them all. The three that would be the most common would be Latinae - regular latin people who are not from Rome-, Latinae Romani - latin people from Rome or surrounding farms-, and etruscan -having an ancient bloodline from such a noble and legendary people is something to be admired, or mistrusted-.

Buildings
Vacation Villas: The estates of Roman patricians who occasionally visited but for the most part left the estates care to tenants. As the owner(s) can buy up large sums of land for farming this can greatly increase the amount of useable farmland. As the same lords would be rich enough to hire workers or buy slaves then the farm output would be ensured. Game effect that this building increases farming output.

War Bonds: The only way I could think of representing this would be if it was a building. In times of great financial stress during war (like the Punic wars) the government would find itself short on funds and would ask the rich patricians in the city if they would loan money t the state that was promised to be payed off in increments. Game effect - Increases income somehow(I'm not a modder).

TRAITS
Historian/poet/playwright: many famous generals documented their own achievements or were simply interested in writing.

Farmowner/landowner/landlord: More likely to get rich or be an unwilling campaigner but would also increase farm production in the city their in.

Clients/Patrons: The character can both be a patron(meaning he has followers that will support him in political elections) and be a client(he follows a patron). This can happen because a character can have Plebeian clients and yet can be the client of a more powerful Patron. Being a patron would increase your chances of being elected to offices but being a client would lower them. Being a patron would also increase happiness as he could and would offer protection, legally or otherwise to locals. This could also lead to traits like has/is a rude/kind patron

Pater/Paterfamilias: Any Roman character that marries immediately becomes a pater meaning that he is the father head of the household. This oppens up other traits. Paterfamilias is given to any Roman character that has children/grandchildren and does not have a living father. This means that he has absolute power over his section of the family. I don't know what the game effect of this would be.

Family Related: I don't know what exactly the game effect of these would be but the name of each trait knid of implies an effect. Kind father/ Loves his children/ Tyranical father/ Loves his wife/ Kind husband/ Wife beater/ Lost his father, mother/ lost his child, wife, sister, brother/ had a stepmother/ had a kind or tyranical father/ Is an ungrateful son/ has an ungrateful son/ loves, detestes his brother,sister/ Has a child(happiness)/ infertile wife (unhappiness)/ spoils children/ disciplines children

Guardian: This means the character is the financial guardian of a nephew or niece or other relative due to being given this responsibility by that relatives father or paterfamilias upon their death.

Holds Dinners: Goes along with wealthy, increases chance of vices.

Eats well, poorly: based on class, also affects morale. If general eats well when the troops are starving they will not be happy, but if the general eats rations like the men they will take courage in his presence.

Diseases/illness/dysentery/asthma/broken bones: I think you guys have most of these. Just listing them.

Distrusts doctors: Lowers recovery rate, decreases fertility

Education(good/bad) - Studied abroad: education is self explanatory but studied abroad could give him different bonuses depending on where he studied, especially military bonuses against the faction he studied with if he studied in another country.

Magistrates:priest/judges/diplomats/military officers/senators/lawers - each of these professions offers different bonuses to those who have them, like diplomat increasing a character's influence.

Holds public contract: Means they are 'less likely' to get a senatorial position as the senate didn't allow its members to hold public contracts. Also increases wealth and reduces building time/cost in a settlement.

Gambler:Excessive/Doesn't - vices virtues affected- could increase or decrease wealth depending on his luck.

Frequents the Baths/ Doesn't bathe: First increases laziness and vices, second decreases influence. A balance is best.

Napkin Tief: An amusing trait. I read that because guests had to bring their own napkins to a dinner party, some guests would sneakily remove their 'friend's' napkins while they weren't looking and profit greatly from the event.

ANCILLIARIES

Persistent Nurses and Paedagogues: Nurses and Paedagogues were the female and male tutors, playmates and guardians of Roman children. Persistent guardians continued to follow their old charges around after they had grown up to ensure that they lived a good moral life. Decreases vices.

Doctor: I think you have this one, but just incase.

Undertaker: Don't know what this one could do.

Gladiator: Rich men bought gladiators to fight in the arena. May increase vices but may also decrease personal security.

Midwife: Increases fertility

Tutors: School teacher/private tutor/Rhetor(professor of rhetoric) - affects childs education

Farm and ranch slaves/Household slaves/mill slaves/ mine and factory slaves: most of these would be limited to settled governers except maybe household slaves and the rest would increase production in some way or another. But could also increase the cruelty and harsheness of the governor due to him mistreating slaves.

Aediles: I think you have this already. I believe there were different functions for aediles like selling captive slaves, etc...

Herald and Pantomime: Herald increases influence, pantomime, I don't know, just fun really.

Playwright: Much like the historian and poet ancilliaries.

Client: In relation to the Patron/client trait discussed above.

Disgusting Practices

Although it seems apalling to us the Romans (and Ptolemies) often wed their daughters at horrifyingly young ages. EB might want to lower the 'maturity' age of girls a little bit more to reflect this. It seems strange, but There are inscriptions of child brides being only !!!!7!!!!! years old. Oh the horror.


:laugh4: Well, thats that for now, I have some pictures of military units to put up in a question about skins and successor elephants but I'm having trouble with posting pictures for now so I'll leave that for later.:dizzy2:

[Simmons]

:idea2: Well, you guys asked for suggestions and I've got them for you.:idea2:

1. Should Baktria maybe start as a protectorate of Arche Seleukia? From what I've read of the history and when they came to power this would make more sense and would prevent them from overrunning Seleukia early on in the game. This would also justify giving them another province like Alexandropolis or something.Factions can not start as a protectorate in 1.2 and I doubt its changed in the 1.5 patch would be nice though :( But on this same subject would if be possible to give the Baktrain faction leader the satrap title until Baktria breaks away from Seleukia?

As for the rest sorry Tanit but I'm on a 10 min break at work so I will have to read the rest of your post later looks good though!

[eadingas]

We had to make islands unreachable because AI had a tendency to land full stack armies there just for the fun of it.

[Trithemius]

We had to make islands unreachable because AI had a tendency to land full stack armies there just for the fun of it.

Obviously to guard against the terrible "Sea Rebels". The AI is not stupid, its just TOO smart.

[Ludens]

Oh yeah, the batch file. I forgot about that. So it's not really a BI-thing. That batch method could be used for any version of RTW, really...
So, can we expect counterfactions in EB 1.0? ~;)

@ Tanit
1. Bactria protectorate: I don't think this will work. A faction that becomes a protectorate will go docile, while Bactria should be actively trying to gain its independence.

2. Islands: again, it messes up the A.I.

3. Intro movies: sounds good. I wonder if the EB team is interested.

4. Roman ethnicities: I don't think this is really relevant: all family members are at least of the equestrian class, or else they wouldn't have leading positions in the administration. Nobility counted for a lot in those days.

[Tanit]

We had to make islands unreachable because AI had a tendency to land full stack armies there just for the fun of it.

Well, if the AI is improved in 1.5 then this would possibly occur less often. Also, there are a few islands still landable in the current game and the AI never lands on them. Besides, as long as they still had their fleet they could remove their armies from said islands when they wished, giving the player incentive to crush their fleet rather than ignore it. Perhaps at least the ones close to shore? :juggle2:

[Foot]

3. Intro movies: sounds good. I wonder if the EB team is interested.


Well ahead of you on that one. They are in the works (planning stages at the moment and work won't start again until 0.8 gets out), I head up the group doing EB movies.

Foot

[NeoSpartan]

Hey guys I just noticed something (I hope u guys did already) that needs to be fixed.

-I had Thorakitai Hoplitai, Thorakitai, and Thureophoroi running around and fighting until all 3 were Exausted. Then I stopped moving them so they can take a break..... BUT after 12 game minutes the Thorakitai Hoplitai were FRESH, but the Thorakitai and Thureophoroi were TIRED. :dizzy2: wtf???

-Apparantly the Thorakitai and Thureophoroi take much longer that the other units to catch thier breath. Is this going to be fixed in .8???? Or is there a Specific Reason for this???

[MSB]

Although it seems apalling to us the Romans (and Ptolemies) often wed their daughters at horrifyingly young ages. EB might want to lower the 'maturity' age of girls a little bit more to reflect this. It seems strange, but There are inscriptions of child brides being only !!!!7!!!!! years old. Oh the horror.

In vanilla RTW the House of Julii had a character called Amulus Julius who was 23. He married a 4 year old! Everybody who I know who knows the game was shocked at how disgusting and strange this was! Perhaps as well as implimeting this in game they could also implimeting family members coming of age younger. Perhaps at twelve or at latest fourteen? Roman men would historically come of age between this period. Also perhaps give women a wider variety of faces. For example on one family tree all women had either one face (under 16) or another face (over sixteen) this would add personality to the women.

Tanit they were brilliant suggestions. The EB team should demand you sign up for supplying such brilliant ideas which are possible to implement (unlike mine which change things which are hardcoded). I am almost jealous!

[Zaknafien]

Great suggestions Tanit, I absolutely agree with you. Im all for a totally immersive gaming experience.

Following the Roman suggestions, what about some of these?

Traits:

Dictator --This man has been voted military Dictator of Rome. He will hold this office for 6 months (2 turns) All other magistrates imperiums have been suspended, and the Dictator commands the authority of two Consuls in one.

Magister Equitium--The Dictator's second in command and advisor, literally, "Master of Horse". The tradition that the Dictator would not ride a horse likely came from older, hopilte centered Roman warfare, and was partially suspended during the Second Punic War.

Former Dictator (influence bonus)
Former Magister Equitum (influence bonus)


Ancilliaries:

Lictor --Consuls were accompanied by 12 Lictors

Fasces --Axe men who accompanied the Consul, signifiying his power over life and death.

Named legion banners (I Legio II Legio, etc) or more detailed ( I Italica)

Buildings:

I totally agree with the pleasure villas, as these were more a status symbol than a vacation home in Roman politics.

Resources:

The Italian coast south of Rome should have oysters for Orata's famous oyster farms there. :2thumbsup:


Miscellaneous:

This is probably crazy and impossible in RTW, but it would be neat to have a researchable building in the MIC that was something along the lines of a professional Roman logistics network, and would slowly allow units to replenish their numbers when in garrison or stationed in forts over seasons, to account for 'new recuits' being sent to join the legions.

In addition, it would also be cool if there was attrition on units while in the field, moreso during winter campaigning, seiges, etc.

[Lusted]

The coming of age for family members is hardcoded.

[Krusader]

So, can we expect counterfactions in EB 1.0? ~;)

I expect that to be a joke, but can say, that I for one and I think others too will no way as hell start researching and collecting materials for 19-20 new factions with the depth and accuracy we have.

@Zaknafien:

Romans only elected dictators in times of great peril and need. If the Republic is going along smoothly, why give one guy all executive command?

[MSB]

Romans only elected dictators in times of great peril and need. If the Republic is going along smoothly, why give one guy all executive command?

If you read what I said earlier...


I like the idea of having a dictator office in state. This could perhaps only occur if the state has a crisis (like if Epeiros over runs Italy and Rome is down to only one pathetic province). Also at this time all senate offices could sort of close (meaning that they remain open, but offer less effective bonus')and perhaps if the dictator is powerfull enough he could declare himself a sole ruler (some dictators did that). Perhaps if this happened it could trigger a civil war between the dictator and the senate and perhaps parts of the republic that support the senate could turn rebel however if down to one province then they are stuck with a sole ruler if the dictator decides to call himself that.

So only in a crisis should a dictator turn up to boss everybody about like if somebody overuns the republic or the Parthians are a problem to conquer e.c.t.

And there was something I noticed when I first started playing vannila. The issue that spies can end up in a city but only tell you about what the garrison is like there, what buldings are there, the population and public order. This is an obvious thing that anybody could possibly do without even putting a spy in the settlement (although maybe it should be harder to find out about the garrison), but what a spy cannot do tell you anything useful. Perhaps a spy could end up getting himself in the goverment so that he can give you line of sight to the faction being spied and could also realese plans of miltary statragy and notify you of when they are going to attack you (or when they are not). Eventually they could (with enough subterferge) end up as a general of the enemy and lead enemy troops to take over the enemy's own faction. Of course this would need ALOT of subterferge, at least 6, to be able to do this well they should need at least 8 and to do this perfectly they would need 10. Of course this would be a risky buisness so if they were to get intrigrated into the goverment the chances of them being killed should go by at least 75%. This may have historically never happened, but it could have happened. For example the Adeiu never conqured the whole of Italy, but I did when I played them.

Also assasins should take a long time to kill their target. They would not just sneak past guards and stab the target in the neak. A clever killer would get themself trusted as the targets freind and then when the guards leave him alone with the target he takes the oppertunity to kill him. So perhaps the higher the subterferge the longer the killer will take to kill the target, but the chances of killing the target will be much higher. Also assasins should manage to kill the target and then get themselves killed as they escape.

Also a few trait suggestions for Romans:
Gladiator-This man is so obsessed with the blood and gore of the games that he even decides to take part, something that no true Roman patrician would ever do! Gladiator are simple criminals and common slaves! Of course his victims are either unarmed or have "toy" wepons. -4 Influence -2 to Personal Sercurity.

I got that idea from reading about Commodus been killed by the Pretorian Guard for his gladitorial and strange ways.

Distrust's his bodyguard-This man is terrified of being assasinated by his own bodyguard. So terrified that he tried to keep his guards away from him at all times. This foolish act opens him up for assasination from his true enemies. -2 to Personal Sercurity, -20% off the general's bodyguard size.

And a suggestion for an ancillary:
Power hungry bodyguard-This man has a power hungry bodyguard who would do almost anything to get this man's power for himself. -9 to Personal Sercurity and increases the chance of the general getting the "Distrusts his bodyguards" trait.

I hope that these ideas are possible to be implimented.
Thankyou

[eadingas]

These ideas would be great if we were making our own game. Unfortunately, we're just doing a mod for a game somebody else did :)

[Tanit]

Also a few trait suggestions for Romans:
Gladiator-This man is so obsessed with the blood and gore of the games that he even decides to take part, something that no true Roman patrician would ever do! Gladiator are simple criminals and common slaves! Of course his victims are either unarmed or have "toy" wepons. -4 Influence -2 to Personal Sercurity.

I got that idea from reading about Commodus been killed by the Pretorian Guard for his gladitorial and strange ways.

Distrust's his bodyguard-This man is terrified of being assasinated by his own bodyguard. So terrified that he tried to keep his guards away from him at all times. This foolish act opens him up for assasination from his true enemies. -2 to Personal Sercurity, -20% off the general's bodyguard size.

These look fairly good but I don't know much about whether a general's bodyguard can be altered like that. Otherwise, great.


And a suggestion for an ancillary:
Power hungry bodyguard-This man has a power hungry bodyguard who would do almost anything to get this man's power for himself. -9 to Personal Sercurity and increases the chance of the general getting the "Distrusts his bodyguards" trait.

I hope that these ideas are possible to be implimented.
Thankyou

I have just one point to make about that one. perhaps there could be an ancilliary that was called a power hungry bodyguard but IF the An. was as you described it then no self-respecting general would keep such a man, in fact such a man would be killed. Perhaps instead the Ancilliary would simply be power hungry in general and is actually leeching onto the general he is attached to trying to move up the political/military ladder. Basically the same effect but maybe only a -3 or -5 to personal security, not so drastic.

Spies and Assassins. Both need work but I think both are hardcoded so I'll wait for an EB memeber to define that before I make any suggestions.

Dictator and Magister Equitum As my esteemed colleagues, in the group known as "The EB fans", Zaknafien and Matthius Julius said, it would be great to see it in the game. A dictator can be declared in two ways, as an emergency in the state, or by a powerful general. Should the Romans lose a specified number/percentage of either generals or cities, preferably cities, but maybe both, or, should a consul or both consuls be killed before the elections, then a character with high command will be declared temporary dictator and another will be declared Magister Equitum. Option two, should a general be immensely successful, take a lot of provinces, defeat a lot of armies, etc.. and should he be old enough to have influence in Italy/Rome(about 50/60) and should he have previously held the position of consul, then he can declare himself dictator for life, which while it has its bonuses would also be well represented by causing a lot of unrest, caused both by the man holding the title and certain other generals. This would be because when he declared himself dictator for life all other faction members would get a trait that either said they support the dictator or they don't. Those that support him decrese unrest(law enforcers) While those that don't support him cause unrest and get a major decrease in cost to bribe(Rebel Romans). It would also be interesting if after a while the faction leader was capable of receiving the posittion Tribunis Plebeiis Imperator should he have previously held consul or dictator. This would represent the start of the emperors. Basically the character gets the same bonus as the Tribune of the Plebs and other bonuses for being the Imperator. This is what Augustus did and other Emperors continued to do. He said he was actually restoring the Republic and declared himself Imperator but legally took the position of Tribune of the Plebs in the government. He was in theory just an official, but in reality the (almost) absolute ruler of the Empire. This trait could be any of the important positions in the government from Tribune of the people up to Consul. All the emperors did this up until around the time of Constantine, they took a position in the government and the name Imperator. Different Emperors had different degrees of power in actuality as the senate and other governmental positions still had a fair bit of power and the election of officials stayed in the hands of the people for a long time. All these positions would be rare but if they just happened to turn up it would make the game immensely exciting!:2thumbsup:

[Zaknafien]

unique building ideas: (more to follow)

The Ovile ("sheepfold")

One of the few structures that exist on the Campus Maritus, the Ovile is a compound filled with barriers and aisles, the kind used to pen livestock. This is where elections to the various Roman magistracies are held.The voters are herded down the aisles in separate blocks according to wealth and status. To vote for Tribunes, for instance, the voters would be divided according to tribe. Every vote had to be delivered in person at the Ovile, ensuring that only the most wealthy Romans abroad could afford the trip. The citizens assembled to vote in the same way their ancestors assembled to go to war. Just as in the days of the kings, a trumpet would be blown at daybreak to summon them to the Campus. A red flag would be flown from the Janiculum Hilly beyond the Tiber, signalling that no enemies could be seen. The citizens would then line up as though for battle, with the richest at the front and the poorest in the rear. So heavily weighted were the votes of the wealthy, that they usually served to decide the election before the poor had a chance to cast their ballots.

[Roderick Ponce Von Fontlebottom]

What about the trait "imperator", that is in the Res Gestai mod. Anbody in the imperial family gets the trait.

[Foot]

What about the trait "imperator", that is in the Res Gestai mod. Anbody in the imperial family gets the trait.

We already have the trait imperator, it just isn't passed by family.

Foot

[Slartibardfast]

Well ahead of you on that one. They are in the works (planning stages at the moment and work won't start again until 0.8 gets out), I head up the group doing EB movies.

Foot
~:thumb:
Can't wait!

[MSB]

Power hungry bodyguard-This man has a power hungry bodyguard who would do almost anything to get this man's power for himself. -9 to Personal Sercurity and increases the chance of the general getting the "Distrusts his bodyguards" trait.


These look fairly good but I don't know much about whether a general's bodyguard can be altered like that. Otherwise, great.

I have just one point to make about that one. perhaps there could be an ancilliary that was called a power hungry bodyguard but IF the An. was as you described it then no self-respecting general would keep such a man, in fact such a man would be killed. Perhaps instead the Ancilliary would simply be power hungry in general and is actually leeching onto the general he is attached to trying to move up the political/military ladder. Basically the same effect but maybe only a -3 or -5 to personal security, not so drastic.

Owing to what Tanit said I'm going to change it slightly:

Power Hungry Manipulative Bodyguard: This man has a power hungry bodyguard who would do almost anything to get this man's power for himself. Normally in this case he would be killed, but this bodyguard is also a smooth talker and liar, this General has no idea what he is like. -5 to Personal Sercurity and increases the chance of the general getting the "Trusts his bodyguards" traits.

And a few more trait suggestions:
Trusts his bodyguard: This man puts his trust in his bodyguard in times of need. +1 Personal Sercurity

And then perhaps you could put some more in between traits that give +2 personal sercurity, another one +3 till you get to:

Adores his bodyguard: This man has an obsession with his bodyguard and every single man in it to the point of (at times) even having love affairs with his men. Of course this keeps him safe from his true enemies, but what about enemies in the bodyguard. +1 to personal sercurity +20% to bodyguard size.

The amount of sercurity is decreased in the last one because he trust his bodyguard too much.

And another one:

Distrust's his bodyguard-This man has not trust of his bodyguard. He has such a lack of trust that he keeps it away from him most of the time. This opens him for assassination by his true enemies. -2 to Personal Sercurity, -20% off the general's bodyguard size.

And then you could turn it into a trait line having a series of traits each one decreasing into personal sercurity till eventually

Terrified of his bodyguard: This man hates his bodyguard above all things and in terrified that they might turn on him to. He keeps them away from him at all times and only allows them near him in a battle. This of course opens him up to his true enemies. -4 personal sercurity, -50% to the general's bodyguard size.

And another one:

Fought with assassins: This man has fought with men trying to kill him. He was sucessful, but now he may put more trust in his bodyguard. Game effects: Increases the chance of the man getting the trusts his bodyguard trait or if he already has the trait the distrusts his bodyguard trait.

Another set:

Partially blind: This man cannot see very well. Of course he tries to hide it from the general public. -3 Command -2 Management -1 Personal Sercurity

Fully blind: This man cannot see a thing. Somebody could wave a large flag in front of his face and he would never even see it. Of course this has an immense effect on his life being unable to see. -6 Command -5 Management -3 Influence -2 Personal Sercurity

And finally:

Up the (racing teams name): The man supports this chariot (racing teams name) racing team. This mans love of one team makes those who support the other teams a bit shifty. +1 influence +3 to Unrest.

And some ancillaries (for Romans):

Charioteer-A charioteer is an expert in managing to control a weighty chariot around corners. He understand everything about them and he also can give lots of advice in how to stop them. +1 Command when fighting chariots.

And to join a general in Rome around 110BC:

Gaius Marius: Famous Roman military reformer who put the Roman army on a proffesional footing. His immense performances in battle and an understanding of his new military machine enable him to help a general command armies with immense skill. +3 Command.

Or perhaps Gaius Marius could be a character up for adoption/marriage around about 130BC-120BC. Perhaps whether they adopt Gaius or not could effect the Marius Reforms and when they happen. No adoption - a long time till reforms, an adoption or marrage reforms very soon! Although I wouln't recommnend that you tell anybody if you were to impliment that. It would make the game unfair.



The Ovile ("sheepfold")

One of the few structures that exist on the Campus Maritus, the Ovile is a compound filled with barriers and aisles, the kind used to pen livestock. This is where elections to the various Roman magistracies are held.The voters are herded down the aisles in separate blocks according to wealth and status. To vote for Tribunes, for instance, the voters would be divided according to tribe. Every vote had to be delivered in person at the Ovile, ensuring that only the most wealthy Romans abroad could afford the trip. The citizens assembled to vote in the same way their ancestors assembled to go to war. Just as in the days of the kings, a trumpet would be blown at daybreak to summon them to the Campus. A red flag would be flown from the Janiculum Hilly beyond the Tiber, signalling that no enemies could be seen. The citizens would then line up as though for battle, with the richest at the front and the poorest in the rear. So heavily weighted were the votes of the wealthy, that they usually served to decide the election before the poor had a chance to cast their ballots.

Lovley idea Zaknafien. Hopefully your idea(s) can get worked in.

And I am going to celebrate because this is my 50th post!~:cheers:

Thankyou

[MSB]

Oh and something else:


These ideas would be great if we were making our own game. Unfortunately, we're just doing a mod for a game somebody else did :)

So why don't you make your own game?!

[eadingas]

Because we're amateur modders, not a game-making company :)

[MSB]

Because we're amateur modders, not a game-making company :)

Yes I agree that you are, but from humble beginnings an mighty empire can grow. The EB Team could try to make a profesional game that contains everybody's brilliant ideas to create a Total War style game that is in no way associated with the CA. This would be easy with all of the EB teams immaginations. Eventually you could even undermine the CA and (if you get enough revenue to) buy them out so that you can change the Total War Series and make it to historical and gameplay perfection. One day the EB team could perhaps even contol the entire real time strat (or at least the ones that take place in the past) gaming industry. All of that power in EB's hands equals a perfect world of ideal gaming.

Of course this would probably never happen, but hey! It's a good idea and worth a try. A publisher with any sence would publish a game created by the EB team due to it's brilliant gameplay that completly make you feel like you were there and people would most certainly buy it. Sell them all off a &#163;29.99 and soon you will all be millionares!

[Christianus]

Hi!

Pardon my disturbance of the tread Only wanted to say that my great wish for EB is to have the city of THESSALONIKI included on the map:)

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Sorry, but it can't happen. There are lots of greek cities we would like to include, but we don't have enough province/city slots. We thought about it, but Salonika isn't big enough yet at the game's start (272bc) and other cities elsewhere were more important. Don't feel bad - lots of important places can't be included either. But that's one that we didn't feel was very close esp. with Pella being nearby and the capital.

[Geoffrey S]

Yes I agree that you are, but from humble beginnings an mighty empire can grow. The EB Team could try to make a profesional game that contains everybody's brilliant ideas to create a Total War style game that is in no was associated with the CA. This would be easy with all of the EB teams immaginations. Eventually you could even undermine the CA and (if you get enough revenue to) buy them out so that you can change the Total War Series and make it to historical and gameplay perfection. One day the EB team could perhaps even contol the entire real time strat (or at least the ones that take place in the past) gaming industry. All of that power in EB's hands equals a perfect world of ideal gaming.

Of course this would probably never happen, but hey! It's a good idea and worth a try. A publisher with any sence would publish a game created by the EB team due to it's brilliant gameplay that completly make you feel like you were there and people would most certainly buy it. Sell them all off a £29.99 and soon you will all be millionares!
Who would actually code the game, and why would EB modders actually want to spend their lives doing this? Remember, modders are amateurs who do this in their spare time next to other jobs or studying. Starting a company and creating a new engine is way out of almost any mods league.

[MSB]

Who would actually code the game, and why would EB modders actually want to spend their lives doing this? Remember, modders are amateurs who do this in their spare time next to other jobs or studying. Starting a company and creating a new engine is way out of almost any mods league.
Fair point :shame:.

[eadingas]

Well frankly, I wouldn't mind working for a gaming company if I could do what I do for EB... unfortunately there's not many companies willing to employ a guy who just researches stuff on the internet and comes up with weird ideas for others to implement ;)

[MSB]

Well frankly, I wouldn't mind working for a gaming company if I could do what I do for EB... unfortunately there's not many companies willing to employ a guy who just researches stuff on the internet and comes up with weird ideas for others to implement ;)
I would employ you! Thing is I'm just odd :laugh4: and I'm not a big gaming boss so I can't.:no: :shame:

[MSB]

After watching "Rome" on BBC1 last night I though of some more trait (lines):

Poet for Romans (this was in vanilla, but I think that it should be negative for Romans): This man is a poet who resorts to writing epic poems and reciting them in public! Nothing a true Roman would ever do! It's modern equivalent would be a monarch becoming a pole dancer! And of course this act leaves him exposed for assassination too - theatres don't have great sercurity! -4 influence and -3 personal sercurity.

Obsessed by the Beauty of the Arts: This man loves the arts above all things and has an immense taste for great things of immense beauty. This "love" of this causes him to demand more decorative buildings which are ornate. The people love his fine taste for beuty. His treasury does not! -2 Management, +2 Influence, +20% to building build times, +20 to building cost.

A few in between traits and:

Derranged by Art: This man is obsessed with the arts. So obsessed that he would perhaps even burn down a city and rob the temples to rebuild it perfectly. However his obsession would not end there. He would even be insane enough to "tame" his enemies by standing in front of the enemy army and singing. The fool! -5 managment -1 influence +50% to building build time +100% to building cost.

If the man has low enough influence, is mad and has lost enough battles he get the trait:

Enemy of Rome: This man is so useless and insane the senate have decided to declare him an enemy of Rome. It is every citizen's duty to kill this man. -10 influence, -20 personal sercurity and -8 morale for all troops under his command. Game Effects: When a general gets this trait him and a few of his troops turn rebel.

Also perhaps you could add traits for most illness' that people may have suffered at this time. This could include deafness, loss of limbs, gangrene, paralisis and Leprosy.

[Orb]

On another topic - don't the BI barbarians have a full city tree (huge cities)? Would there be a way to make EB 'barbarians' have these?

[Chuffy]

On another topic - don't the BI barbarians have a full city tree (huge cities)? Would there be a way to make EB 'barbarians' have these?

I think barbarians in 1.5 can have the ability (through modding) to build level 4 and 5 cities.

I would personally love to see it...but maybe make a sort of reform type thing. If they come into contact/conquer with enough Romans/Greeks they adapt a bit of the culture...making larger cities...Roman architects being employed to build aquaeducts etc etc.

[Orb]

I don't think they need a reform to have these level 4-5 cities, I'm fairly skeptical that the Greeks and Romans were the only ones who knew what a city was. The 'barbarians' were, ironically, better-bathed than the Romans (if I'm correct, which I might be)

[Orb]

At Matthius, many of those traits seem much too exaggerated in effect. EB has a nice system where traits combine to make up a character, rather than a character's entire stats being dominated by one trait.

[cunctator]

I don't think they need a reform to have these level 4-5 cities, I'm fairly skeptical that the Greeks and Romans were the only ones who knew what a city was. The 'barbarians' were, ironically, better-bathed than the Romans (if I'm correct, which I might be)

Can't speak about the "barbarians," but at least during the principate every tiny roman backwater garrison and small town has had it's own bathhouse. I doubt the number of public bathes was surpassed by any culture since then.

At least celts will have large lvl. 4 cities in 0.8, not sure about iberians and getai. Sweboz and nomads will still be limited to lvl. 3 cities.

[MSB]

I don't think they need a reform to have these level 4-5 cities, I'm fairly skeptical that the Greeks and Romans were the only ones who knew what a city was. The 'barbarians' were, ironically, better-bathed than the Romans (if I'm correct, which I might be)

At Matthius, many of those traits seem much too exaggerated in effect. EB has a nice system where traits combine to make up a character, rather than a character's entire stats being dominated by one trait.


If the man has low enough influence, is mad and has lost enough battles he get the trait:

Enemy of Rome: This man is so useless and insane the senate have decided to declare him an enemy of Rome. It is every citizen's duty to kill this man. -10 influence, -20 personal sercurity and -8 morale for all troops under his command. Game Effects: When a general gets this trait him and a few of his troops turn rebel.

Ok lets get rid of that trait then. Mabye I was a little over the top with that one... So perhaps if all of the traits I ever suggested were to have a slightly less influence, management or command bonus/penalty then it would not be so extravagant.

Orb you are correct in saying that the Barbarians were better bathed. They washed with soap. Something that the Romans and Greeks never would use.

Can I just suggest that the Celts, the Germans and other Barbarians don't have the word "barbarian" in the culture name. It should be changed to something a little more like what they would call themselves. Don't ask me to give examples. I have no idea what they would historically call themselves!

[Trithemius]

Can I just suggest that the Celts, the Gemans and other Barbarians don't have the word "barbarian" in the culture name. It should be changed to something a little more like what they would call themselves. Don't ask me to give examples. I have no idea what they would historically call themselves!

What's a suitable pan-Eurasian equivalent?

[Tanit]

I was thinking about the Carthaginians the other day and I had a couple of thoughts.

They would not call themselves Quarthadastim. I could be mistaken, but as Quarhadast (The true name of Carthage) meant 'new city' in Phoenician then Quarthadastim would be something like 'People of the new city' I don't know for sure, but I would like to know why EB wants them to call themselves that.

Phoenician colonies. It was mentioned on another thread that it should be possible for Carthaginians to recruit at least their militia citizen phalanx from any city with a Phoenician colony. After some research I discovered that this was, pretty much, true. The Phoenicians would colonize places and then the colonists, still being Carthaginian citizens, would, in times of need, form citizen armies much like those that fought invaders in North africa. Of course there was supposedly a difference between colonial citizens and homeland citizens though I couldn't find anywhere that said what the difference was. I suspect this difference would have had something to do with local influence. The ability to recruit these citizens after building a colony would help in areas where Carthage can't build any troops, like in Latium for example. It's really annoying in the campaign to capture Rome and then be unable to recruit a garrison.

Carthaginian naval reforms: The Carthaginians, at the outset of the Punic war had a large number of ships partially beause they contained very small complements of armed men(marines). Partway through the Punic war the Carthaginians began outfitting their fleet with more marines and more specifically the best pick of their most skilled mercenaries. In game this would be a normal reform with the Punic fleets starting out with fewer men than they have now and then after the reform their ship complement is brought up to what it is now.

Carthaginian land forces reforms: In addition to the reforms you already have. After Hannibal had fought several battles with the Romans his men began to use Roman equipment they had captured from the defeated enemy. They took armour and weapons from the Romans but not shields so that they would not be mistaken for the enemy. It would be cool to see Iberians, Liby-phoenicians, africans and Libyans armed with Roman weapons and armour.

Libyans: It is mentioned in the accounts of the invasion of North Africa by Agathocles of Syraceuse that he convinced the Libyans to join him and that these included Libyan chariots. It is also mentioned that the Libyans were charioteers in the same way as the Balearic Islanders were slingers, it was a natural passed on speciality of the locals. Agathocles' invasion of North Africa took place approximately thirty years before the game of EB starts. There would most likely still be local Libyan charioteers and also likely mercenaries as well. The Carthaginians didn't employ them in the Punic wars, but they were still there if a brilliant Carthaginian general had known how to use them, or if an invader had been able to rouse them against their Punic masters. Also, Libyan cavalry is suggested in Polybius' account of the first punic war and the Mercenaries war. In the Punic war there is an account were he mentions the cavalry of the Carthaginians going ahead of the army and then he says that the Libyans fell back to the main army, drawing the enemy in. In the Libyan/mercenaries war, it is mentioned that the rebels received infantry and cavalry from the Libyan cities that joined them.

Xanthippus: I must protest to the way Xanthippus was portrayed inEB 0.74. He didn't arrive in North Africa until at least eighteen years into the first Punic war, and that started ten years after the start of EB. That's 56 turns! Not that the Carthaginians couldn't have hired him sooner, but he certainely wouldn't be in Africa at te start of the game. Now I understand the limitations that CA has put on EB, so if none of suggestions are plausible than the EB team has done the best they can and I approve.
Suggestion #1: Xanthippus starts on a ship with some greek mercenaries (as it was said that he came over with Greek mercenaries hired by Carthage) on his way to North Africa. This one is probably not possible but if it is then it is a good option.
Suggestion #2: Xanthippus starts as a Carthaginian general in Greece with a transport awaiting him.
Suggestion #3: The most historically accurate, though not neccesarily possible. Xanthippus starts as an eleutheroi general in Greece with traits that make him easy to bribe and a Carthaginian diplomat right nearby.

Skiffs: During the account of one of the many times in the first Punic war that Carthage rebuilt her fleet it says that they outfitted triremes, quinqueremes, and the heaviest of their skiffs. I don't know exactly what a skiff is, but its just a thought for making the Carthaginian fleet more diverse.

[khelvan]

According to the world's foremost Punic historian, the Carthaginians called themselves, alternately, Qarthadastim, Tsorim, and one other I can't recall at the moment.

[CountArach]

RE: The Naval Reforms.

I'm not sure about this one. I don't doubt the historical accuracy of it, but consider what would happen if they had won most of the naval battles in the First Punic War. They most likely would not have reformed the navy. Perhaps the only way to truly represent this would be if they had lost several crushing naval defeats vs a nation with far superior infantry (Like the Romans). I personally am not sure if this is possible (I don't think it is).

[Tanit]

RE: The Naval Reforms.

I'm not sure about this one. I don't doubt the historical accuracy of it, but consider what would happen if they had won most of the naval battles in the First Punic War. They most likely would not have reformed the navy. Perhaps the only way to truly represent this would be if they had lost several crushing naval defeats vs a nation with far superior infantry (Like the Romans). I personally am not sure if this is possible (I don't think it is).

I didn't think it was possible but I had to throw it out just in case.



According to the world's foremost Punic historian, the Carthaginians called themselves, alternately, Qarthadastim, Tsorim, and one other I can't recall at the moment.

After I wrote it and looked back at it, the name made a whole lot more sense then when I was writing it. Thanks for the source info Khelvan!:book: :2thumbsup:

[Tanit]

I know you guys say that you work in concert with other mods, and this has probably been asked elsewhere, but, Will EB be using some of the AI enhancing features that DarthMod used? This would be great as I currently find the AI sloppy and far too easy to beat. Even on VH/VH the biggest problem to face is simply the number of rebels popping up everywhere. I personally feel that when the difficulty level says hard, then the AI should be improved, rather than just giving them more randomly appearing units.

[paullus]

According to the world's foremost Punic historian, the Carthaginians called themselves, alternately, Qarthadastim, Tsorim, and one other I can't recall at the moment.

so, just who is the world's foremost pre-Roman Punic historian?

[MSB]

Xanthippus: I must protest to the way Xanthippus was portrayed inEB 0.74. He didn't arrive in North Africa until at least eighteen years into the first Punic war, and that started ten years after the start of EB. That's 56 turns! Not that the Carthaginians couldn't have hired him sooner, but he certainely wouldn't be in Africa at te start of the game. Now I understand the limitations that CA has put on EB, so if none of suggestions are plausible than the EB team has done the best they can and I approve.
Suggestion #1: Xanthippus starts on a ship with some greek mercenaries (as it was said that he came over with Greek mercenaries hired by Carthage) on his way to North Africa. This one is probably not possible but if it is then it is a good option.
Suggestion #2: Xanthippus starts as a Carthaginian general in Greece with a transport awaiting him.
Suggestion #3: The most historically accurate, though not neccesarily possible. Xanthippus starts as an eleutheroi general in Greece with traits that make him easy to bribe and a Carthaginian diplomat right nearby.

Slightly off topic, Xanthippus turned up in Age of Empires (the first one) if you could find him in the First Punic War, the battle of Tunis (I don't know if that battle really happened as I have never heard of it). He had a reasonably Greek army with lots of Phalaxes, two Catapults and a couple of Cataphracts. Now I know who he really was. Yes!

Anyway back on topic he could turn up like this:
The Script at the games start causes a eleutheroi general and a large army of Greek mercenaries turn up near Karthage between 10 - 18 years after a major war has begun and major defeats and victories have started showing up. Then when he appears the scripts causes a box/advisor to pop up telling you "A General can be Hired". This box will tell you that a General named Xanthippus is willing to be hired by you for lets say 30,000. It could give historical infomation about him his armies and what Carthage used him for. Then it could give two options Yes hire him, No don't hire him. If you don't hire him he goes of the be hired by somebody else on a rebel navy. If you say yes his army joins you. Brilliant solution!


Phoenician colonies. It was mentioned on another thread that it should be possible for Carthaginians to recruit at least their militia citizen phalanx from any city with a Phoenician colony. After some research I discovered that this was, pretty much, true. The Phoenicians would colonize places and then the colonists, still being Carthaginian citizens, would, in times of need, form citizen armies much like those that fought invaders in North africa. Of course there was supposedly a difference between colonial citizens and homeland citizens though I couldn't find anywhere that said what the difference was. I suspect this difference would have had something to do with local influence. The ability to recruit these citizens after building a colony would help in areas where Carthage can't build any troops, like in Latium for example. It's really annoying in the campaign to capture Rome and then be unable to recruit a garrison.

Carthaginian naval reforms: The Carthaginians, at the outset of the Punic war had a large number of ships partially beause they contained very small complements of armed men(marines). Partway through the Punic war the Carthaginians began outfitting their fleet with more marines and more specifically the best pick of their most skilled mercenaries. In game this would be a normal reform with the Punic fleets starting out with fewer men than they have now and then after the reform their ship complement is brought up to what it is now.

I agree with all of the above, but I wish to suggest that the Romans have naval reforms too. The Romans, had almost no sea power at the games start and had no very good idea how to build ships. A reform should occur after Rome has started a war with a naval faction. Also I think ships sinking by storm should occur much more often. During the Punic Wars Rome lost most of it's fleet to a terrable storm and there were several more historical reports of bad weather on the seas. I also think that if you go out onto the West Coast of Iberia or Gaul you should sink, almost guarenteed.

[khelvan]

so, just who is the world's foremost pre-Roman Punic historian?Dr. Charles Krahmalkov.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Probably suggested before, but, could you enable multiple temples of various gods in a settlement, like RTR does? The bonuses each temple gives probably should be altered in order not to make the overall result overpowering, but still it seems not logical that a power would build only one temple type per settlement.

[Aristophanes]

A lot of people have mentioned the unbalancing effect of massed elite units, particularly those produced by the AI. I was wondering whether the most useful way to limit production of these units, unbalanced when in large quantities, might just be to increase the training time substantially. After all, one would expect elite units to be much better trained, and accumulate training, equipping and rearing time ought to be factored into production time. 3-4 turns for lower order uniques, 4-6 for higher order. After all, it's not like the king's elite guard can be replaced every year in seven different cities all at once. This might also help balance out roman armies: 1 year for hastati, 2 years for principes, 3-5 years for triarii.

[MSB]

A small suggestion for a Roman Trait for spies that spend a turn in Britain or who are trained in Britain or who are hired (if possible) as spy mercenaries in Britain (if controlled by Rome) after the Imperial Reforms:

Areani:
This spy is a member of the secret Roman Imperial British spy network. The Areani were agents in the Roman Imperial army stationed in Britain. They served as both scouts for the legions and as undercover agents spying on the enemies of Rome. Many of them were mercenaries. They were eventually disbanded after they joined the rebels in "The Great Conspiracy" of 367AD.

Game Effects: As this man is with other spies in a unit he learns many new things from them. This increases this spy's chances of getting traits that increase his subterferge and/or line of sight.

[Tanit]

Slightly off topic, Xanthippus turned up in Age of Empires (the first one) if you could find him in the First Punic War, the battle of Tunis (I don't know if that battle really happened as I have never heard of it). He had a reasonably Greek army with lots of Phalaxes, two Catapults and a couple of Cataphracts. Now I know who he really was. Yes!

That's Great!!!!:laugh4: Let's hear it for great old school games!!!:laugh4:


Anyway back on topic he could turn up like this:
The Script at the games start causes a eleutheroi general and a large army of Greek mercenaries turn up near Karthage between 10 - 18 years after a major war has begun and major defeats and victories have started showing up. Then when he appears the scripts causes a box/advisor to pop up telling you "A General can be Hired". This box will tell you that a General named Xanthippus is willing to be hired by you for lets say 30,000. It could give historical infomation about him his armies and what Carthage used him for. Then it could give two options Yes hire him, No don't hire him. If you don't hire him he goes of the be hired by somebody else on a rebel navy. If you say yes his army joins you. Brilliant solution!

Is that possible? If so it would be awesome.


I agree with all of the above, but I wish to suggest that the Romans have naval reforms too. The Romans, had almost no sea power at the games start and had no very good idea how to build ships. A reform should occur after Rome has started a war with a naval faction. Also I think ships sinking by storm should occur much more often. During the Punic Wars Rome lost most of it's fleet to a terrable storm and there were several more historical reports of bad weather on the seas. I also think that if you go out onto the West Coast of Iberia or Gaul you should sink, almost guarenteed.

I agree, but I think that the EB team once said that storms and their effects couldn't really be modded. I could be mistaken here.:juggle2:

[Discoskull]

Also I think ships sinking by storm should occur much more often. During the Punic Wars Rome lost most of it's fleet to a terrable storm and there were several more historical reports of bad weather on the seas. I also think that if you go out onto the West Coast of Iberia or Gaul you should sink, almost guarenteed.

I agree with more ships lost to storms, that would be realistic, but the Celts had the naval power in their part of the world, with ships built to better handle the differences in seafaring found in a vast ocean (bigger waves, winds, etc.), rather than a relatively small and sheltered ocean like the Mediteranian(sp). In fact, Caesar's naval victories against the Atlantic Celts were, most likely, mostly - if not entirely - due to the help and knowhow of his Gaelic allies.

Probably isn't possible, but, if anything like this were actually implimented, perhaps Mediteranian ships would sink more often in the North Seas, or Celtic/Germanic ships have a combat bonus in the North Seas, and vise-versa...again, probably not possible, but it would be cool nonetheless...

At least give the Celts better ships in general. Those ponto flotilla or whatever aren't all that impressive (I sent god knows how many stacks of those things against two units of pirate ships, and had one crushing defeat after another), and for some reason in my Casse campaign I can't train anything better, not even sea warriors...I wait for 0.8 with a smile on my face


"They have flat bottoms," wrote Caesar of the Gallic ships, "which enables them to sail in shallow coastal water. Their high bows and sterns protect them from heavy seas and violent storms, as do their strong hulls made entirely from oak. The cross-timbers -- beams a foot wide -- are secured with iron nails as thick as a man's thumb. Their anchors are secured with chains not ropes, while their sails are made of raw hide or thin leather, so as to stand up to the violent Atlantic winds."



edit: Even still, maybe Romans controlling Celtic ports could build Celtic ships, like Caesar was able to do with the help of his Gaelic allies...

[Homo Sapiens]

I don't know if this has been said already, or if it's even possible, but what if your family members could go into mourning? Perhaps if a general were to die, others could recieve a trait such as:

In Mourning
This man has become wracked with grief over the recent loss of a dear friend. He locks himself in his room for hours at a time, hardly eats, drinks, or sleeps, and spend a good deal of time at the temple in meditation and prayer.
-2 Command, -2 Management, -2 Influence, -50% Movement

This trait would only last a few turns, and those that were unselfish, pessimistic or loyal would be most likely to be affected. It could increase the likelyhood of the affected general gaining religious traits, or go the other way and increase of the likelyhood of engaging in illicit activities.

[MSB]

I don't know if this has been said already, or if it's even possible, but what if your family members could go into mourning? Perhaps if a general were to die, others could recieve a trait such as:

In Mourning
This man has become wracked with grief over the recent loss of a dear friend. He locks himself in his room for hours at a time, hardly eats, drinks, or sleeps, and spend a good deal of time at the temple in meditation and prayer.
-2 Command, -2 Management, -2 Influence, -50% Movement

This trait would only last a few turns, and those that were unselfish, pessimistic or loyal would be most likely to be affected. It could increase the likelyhood of the affected general gaining religious traits, or go the other way and increase of the likelyhood of engaging in illicit activities.

Good Idea, but it should not happen unless the general had spent a long time with the General that had died. So perhaps it could only happen if the dead general had stayed with the general in question for a long time of at least 3 turns in the same army or town or if it was the general's son/father/grandfather e.c.t.

And Homo Sapiens trait has inspired me to make up two others:
Adores his wife (only achieved if unselfish):
This man loves his wife and tries to spend as much of his time with her as possible, he even takes her out on campaign with him. Game Effects: Increase Chance of Having Children, Decreases the chance of getting female ancillaries (e.g Concubine, Mistress e.c.t.) and decreases his chances in taking part in illict activities.

And if the general has that trait and his wife dies then he has a 90% chance of getting this trait:
Mourning his wife:
The man once loved his wife, but now he can love her no more. She has passed away to the afterlife never to return. He cannot stand the pain of her loss and spends all of his time when he should be working at the temple praying for her soul. -1 Command, -4 Management, -1 Influence, -25% Movement.
This trait could be like the "in mourning" one above. It could have the same effects except that it increases his chances of him getting female ancillaries such as mistress, concubine e.c.t.

[MSB]

A few more suggestions:

Could troops die of the heat in deserts. This could have a sort of plague effect on the army in question as troops desert and die.
Give troops the ability to desert
Troops are more likley to desert if they are under the command of a mean or selfish general or one that has lots of morale reducing traits.
Romans armies could "mutainy" and then be decimated (killing 10% of the army). Generals that decimate get a trait that says what they have done and offers penelties and bonus'.
Could ambushes happen almost anywhere in the faction that is doing the ambusing's homeland
Generals that have spent a long time in a town get a command bonus when they fight there as they know the place well.

This would add even more realism to the brilliant mod.

[Simmons]

A few more suggestions:

Could troops die of the heat in deserts. This could have a sort of plague effect on the army in question as troops desert and die.
Give troops the ability to desert
Troops are more likley to desert if they are under the command of a mean or selfish general or one that has lots of morale reducing traits.
Romans armies could "mutainy" and then be decimated (killing 10% of the army). Generals that decimate get a trait that says what they have done and offers penelties and bonus'.
Could ambushes happen almost anywhere in the faction that is doing the ambusing's homeland
Generals that have spent a long time in a town get a command bonus when they fight there as they know the place well.

This would add even more realism to the brilliant mod.The last one sounds possible the rest sorry but you would have to make changes to the game engine.

[Foot]

The last one sounds possible the rest sorry but you would have to make changes to the game engine.

We already have the last one, anyway. If you leave a general in a settlement for long enough he becomes attuned to it and gets various bonuses, one of which is a +1 when defending that settlement (he loses it once he moves however).

Foot

[MSB]

We already have the last one, anyway. If you leave a general in a settlement for long enough he becomes attuned to it and gets various bonuses, one of which is a +1 when defending that settlement (he loses it once he moves however).

Foot

Strange, I never have had that trait once and once a general goes into one of my towns he only leaves if he gets bored. Perhaps its because I am playing downgraded gold.

[Simmons]

Strange, I never have had that trait once and once a general goes into one of my towns he only leaves if he gets bored. Perhaps its because I am playing downgraded gold.I don't get it either and I also have a downgraded version I use to get the trait all the time when I had a 1.2 version of RTW :inquisitive:

[CaesarAugustus]

Stupid question........i didnt have enough time to read all 25 pages of this thread.......but will EB 0.8 be playable with RTW GOLD? (in particular, the one that comes with total war: eras?)

I had made the stupid mistake of giving away my 1.2 version when i bought eras.:embarassed:

[cunctator]

Yes, 0.8 will be for R:TW 1.5 the latest version that comes with the eras pack and R:TW gold.

[Zaknafien]

I use the downgraded version, but I get attuned governors quite regularly..

[Simmons]

I use the downgraded version, but I get attuned governors quite regularly..Guess I have just been playing different. :dizzy2:

[scourgeofrome]

Hello.I'm brand new. First off, this is a grat mod. Okay, back to the subject. I haven't played long, and I'm 99.99% sure this has popped up somewhere, but you guys will clean up the descriptions for the military buildings (its annyong trying to read what units can be built when they are scrambled all over each other). Other that and some annoying graphic placeholders, this is a great mod!

[Teleklos Archelaou]

That has been all taken care of in the new internal build scourge. Getting the game to do that instead of crashing has been one of the biggest problems for us to overcome honestly. blacksnail has been of the utmost importance in fixing this guys - give him big props on it. :2thumbsup:

[scourgeofrome]

Okay. Thats good.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

No more CTD button (building)?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Nope. Quite honestly, I miss it. I got used to having that button there that *immediately* ended the game - but that is the modder in me talking of course, who needs to stop and restart things often.

[Trithemius]

That has been all taken care of in the new internal build scourge. Getting the game to do that instead of crashing has been one of the biggest problems for us to overcome honestly. blacksnail has been of the utmost importance in fixing this guys - give him big props on it. :2thumbsup:

Hooray!

Props to blacksnail, also buttresses, scaffolds, and a groined arch!

[CountArach]

That has been all taken care of in the new internal build scourge. Getting the game to do that instead of crashing has been one of the biggest problems for us to overcome honestly. blacksnail has been of the utmost importance in fixing this guys - give him big props on it. :2thumbsup:

w00t! *Heaps praisse on Blacksnail*

[scourgeofrome]

Another problem (in my view at least) is that the rebels (I can't spell whatever they are called in the game), seem to be a bit too strong. When I have a full stack being utterly decimated while the rebels barely have a dent in their size.This is just on an E/E campaign (I just started playing EB so I went E/E to get used to the changes)! I know its supposed to make the game more challenging, but I'm getting annoyed at having armies I spent thousands on,waited 2+ years to build, then finally another year to reach and siege the city only to be completely destroyed by an uber army of rebels.

[Avicenna]

'groined'?

scourgeofrome: EB is supposed to be realistic, and hence taking more land isn't going to be a stroll in the park like vanilla, a completely unrealistic blitzing competition, to see who can field the most armies large enough to defeat the tiny rebels. The Eleutheroi in EB are supposed to represent whole factions, which aren't quite significant enough to be made playable in the campaign due to faction limitations and such. Anyway, on E/E, even auto resolving battles should be in your favour. If not, simply load the battle and charge...

Also, THANKS A LOT, BLACKSNAIL!! :balloon:

[Trithemius]

'groined'?

Er I mean groin vault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groin_vault), of course... :shame:

[Aristophanes]

Please increase training time of elite units.

[A living god]

Would it possible to remove the ability of spies to open gate for seiegd settlements.

It is alot harder, and more fun trying to fight to hold onto the walls than have the enemy rush all there units though the gate to be slaughtered in the bottle neck.

[MSB]

Would it possible to remove the ability of spies to open gate for seiged settlements.

It is alot harder, and more fun trying to fight to hold onto the walls than have the enemy rush all there units though the gate to be slaughtered in the bottle neck.
That is a good idea, but perhaps instead of making impossible, just make it harder and make it so they only open one gate rather than all four. Only a genius spy would be able to open all four gates in unison.

Also perhaps diplomats could bribe men on the gate to open all of the gates for the diplomat's faction.

And :balloon2: THANKYOU BLACKSNAIL :balloon2:

[CountArach]

That is a good idea, but perhaps instead of making impossible, just make it harder and make it so they only open one gate rather than all four. Only a genius spy would be able to open all four gates in unison.

Also perhaps diplomats could bribe men on the gate to open all of the gates for the diplomat's faction.

And :balloon2: THANKYOU BLACKSNAIL :balloon2:

Hardcoded, at least eh openning gates thing.

[Zaknafien]

Besides, in this period subterfuge was really the only viable way of capturing a city; assaults were invariably too costly and blockade took far too long for the seasonal fighting. The huge majority of cities captured during the first and second punic wars were done so by treachery.

[-Praetor-]

Hi.

I was wondering...

Is there any plans for changing the city plans?

Because, if there is time for the 1.0 version (definitively not for .8), you may mod the citys of the Koinon Hellenon in order for them to have an Akropolis instead of a plaza.

Specially in cities, large and huge, the town square is horrendously big, so, why not using that space, and creating a terrain elevation in order that the agora and a small temple may be placed over it? or even, leaving the space as a plaza or empty square, but having a little hill inside the citiy would be very neat, and would suit every greek colony, since every one of them had an akropolis of some sort.

Also, I find that it has more sense that by conquiering the Akropolis of a polis you`ll have control of the city (since that together with the agora it was the center of the life of the polis), instead of conquering a big empty square inside the city you should have control of the city....

Besides, It would be very accurate, and it seems that it can be done, seeing the work on the Ethernal City mabe by some modder...

Sooo, have you given any thought to the idea?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

If we had the people who could do it, and the time to do it, then yeah, we would. But we just don't right now.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

k_raso's comment gave me an idea. Why not change the appearance (and visible name) of the "palace structures" for certain cultures. Should not the greeks have a hill with temples in the center of the city. And the center of a roman city was its forum. For example, the romans could have a forum building as the center of the town, represting the government and social part of the forum, and a market building represent the trade and game-based bonus of the forum.
As well as the fact that democratic and republican western cultures didn't have a huge single residence in the center of their cities.