View Full Version : Suggestions for v0.8
Kyle Goode
10-04-2006, 20:55
I'm sure someone's already said this, but it's ridiculous that the Ptolemaioi should encounter a culture penalty when they conquer Seleukid or especially Greek cities, and vice versa. Someone please . . . do something about it. =\
Teleklos Archelaou
10-04-2006, 20:58
They share a culture with seleukids and baktria in the next build Kyle. They will still get a penalty though when capturing greek cities/makedonian/epeirote cities. That's pretty much hard coded. You will also see a much bigger difference in greek and eastgreek cultures in 0.8 though (buildings, GUI, generals, music, etc.).
Can I just suggest that you change the portraits for generals from the vanilla portraits to ones that the EB team have created? I am tired of seeing the CA's (not so good) portraits mixed in with the EB team's (brilliant) work. You could actually then create portraits for starting generals based on historical evidence (for example Scipio's portrait could be based on a bust of him e.c.t.).
And also on the matter of portraits shouldn't Xanthippus' portrait be Greek and not Carthaginian/Eastern - after all he was a Spartan mercenary.
Teleklos Archelaou
10-05-2006, 15:32
MJ, you're talking about some insanely difficult things. Take a look at the portrait files (young and old) and see how many it would be. We don't have the ability quite honestly. Also you can't specify that certain characters get certain portraits. There is some method, but it seems to change when other weird things change, and we don't have time to figure it all out. But romans have roman portraits in 0.8 if anyone is curious.
scourgeofrome
10-05-2006, 16:57
I have two suggestions. When you give the AI some money to help them out be at least a little realistic. When the Makedonians are affording 1 and a half stacks of armies with 1 small,insignificant city with a blockade on it, there is something wrong. Also, I think something needs to be done with the AI's fight-until-we-are-destroyed attitude.SOme factions, like Casse, would make sense for them to resist. But I think a faction like KH would be smart enough to know when to throw in the toga (:laugh4:)
Tellos Athenaios
10-05-2006, 18:25
"Also, I think something needs to be done with the AI's fight-until-we-are-destroyed attitude.SOme factions, like Casse, would make sense for them to resist. But I think a faction like KH would be smart enough to know when to throw in the toga"
That fight till you die thingy is something that is part of Vanilla, and therefore most likely can't be solved. Although I have heard of some console command that forces the AI to accept an diplomatic offer, but using this would mean a script to monitor all wars you are waging and more important some way of deciding what sort of proposals should and what sort of shouldn't be accepted. Which means this: loads of work, and maybe failure. (Like the AI accepting the treaty - because of being forced to by script - but attacking next turn and thereby rendering the overall effect nil.)
eadingas
10-05-2006, 18:48
This is actually kind of doable, but requires a massive script and massive amount of script work. I think we might do it one day though, when we have nothing more left to improve on :)
Tellos Athenaios
10-05-2006, 20:32
Well, that would mean AI responding sensibly to diplomacy efforts: EB seems to get better day by day. :2thumbsup:
Let's celebrate: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:
Now back to what this thread all is about: a minor suggestion of mine related to spelling. For as far as I can see the combination of K and H, like in Kheimon, is impossible in (ancient) Greek due to the fact that whenever a sound is aspirated either the apropiate spiritus pops up or (in case with a consonant) the aspirated version is taken. To cup that all, should the trait Kheimon (winter) not be spelled as Cheimon?
In any case, if only for accuracy's sake, it might be worth having someone going through all bits of Greek checking wether aspiration is done correctly or not...
(I thought I had seen the same thing elsewhere in the mod too, but I can't remember a specific case though, mostly due to the fact that whenever I understand what something is about I don't read any description. Which of course doesn't apply to the list of traits my generals have... So that's why.)
Teleklos Archelaou
10-05-2006, 22:33
Yes, it definitely should be Cheimon. Dunno how that crept in there, but it obviously did. Probably my fault. I love the 'k's. :grin: If you see any others, let us know. I just ran through the building text file and didn't see any greek 'kh' combos thankfully.
Give yourself one of those balloons Tellos. :2thumbsup:
Trithemius
10-06-2006, 09:34
This is actually kind of doable, but requires a massive script and massive amount of script work. I think we might do it one day though, when we have nothing more left to improve on :)
Some kind of script that awards a cash bonus for possession of each settlement or something? Sounds labour-intensive...
eadingas
10-06-2006, 09:52
Some kind of script that awards a cash bonus for possession of each settlement or something? Sounds labour-intensive...
That's actually already in the game...
-Praetor-
10-06-2006, 16:41
That's actually already in the game...
God, it would be cool to earn some mnai after a battle, because of the looting of the defeated dead army...
But I guess It would requiere extensive scripting, and that only if it`s not limited by the hardcode. :embarassed:
God, it would be cool to earn some mnai after a battle, because of the looting of the defeated dead army...
But I guess It would requiere extensive scripting, and that only if it`s not limited by the hardcode. :embarassed:
Nice idea. That would actually give a purpose to those epic battles that you fight for no apparent reason.
Could the Seleucid faction colour be a bit darker? Sometimes it's hard to estimate stack strength at a glance without clicking the flag, the one in the screenshot below is over half full.
https://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2610/0017rm1.th.jpg (https://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0017rm1.jpg)
The new siege graphics look great but the game seems to handle them as a part of the city itself. This causes trouble when trying to navigate units near the sieged settlement, especially when trying to land troops near a coastal city. Could you add an entry to the faq how to backup and restore the original siege graphics, if it's possible?
Trithemius
10-07-2006, 07:35
That's actually already in the game...
Is that how the AI cash injections work?
Tellos Athenaios
10-07-2006, 10:18
Another idea: what about having Athens for a capital for the alliance which is represented by Koinon Hellenon? I mean, after all, this alliance was the creation of an Athenian statesman...
CountArach
10-07-2006, 11:57
Another idea: what about having Athens for a capital for the alliance which is represented by Koinon Hellenon? I mean, after all, this alliance was the creation of an Athenian statesman...
Yes it was, but it was under the command of a Spartiate.
Geoffrey S
10-08-2006, 02:59
If you must yo can always move the capitol too Athens.
I was thinking about the Roman faction and how it was democratic and would never have been one family with all the power. So I though that a solution to this would be to have multiple family trees representing the dominant Roman families at the games start. Any member of each family can get elected to senate offices and certain members of each family get elected each turn as generals to lead armies and governors to govern settlements. When a family member has not been elected he is inactive and does not appear on the map (this would stop the Romans having too many family members mobilised at once.) The same could be applied to Celts and other democratic peoples of the time.
This would be a way of not removing the hard-coded family member system, but instead using the problem as the solution.
CountArach
10-09-2006, 08:12
I was thinking about the Roman faction and how it was democratic and would never have been one family with all the power. So I though that a solution to this would be to have multiple family trees representing the dominant Roman families at the games start. Any member of each family can get elected to senate offices and certain members of each family get elected each turn as generals to lead armies and governors to govern settlements. When a family member has not been elected he is inactive and does not appear on the map (this would stop the Romans having too many family members mobilised at once.) The same could be applied to Celts and other democratic peoples of the time.
This would be a way of not removing the hard-coded family member system, but instead using the problem as the solution.
That is hardcoded though. AFAIK Family members cannot disappear and reappear .
Also the AI would have no idea what is going on.
That is hardcoded though. AFAIK Family members cannot disappear and reappear .
Also the AI would have no idea what is going on.
Solution to the first one: Make family members have children less often.
Solution to the second one: I don't know, perhaps an EB member could make it so the AI does know what is going on.
BozosLiveHere
10-09-2006, 19:30
We tried to make it so that Roman (and Carthaginian, and Aedui...) never have babies, so that all new generals come through adoptions/man of the hour events. Unfortunately, we can't really force them to not have babies, only give them so many fertility penalties that a birth is very unlikely.
We tried to make it so that Roman (and Carthaginian, and Aedui...) never have babies, so that all new generals come through adoptions/man of the hour events. Unfortunately, we can't really force them to not have babies, only give them so many fertility penalties that a birth is very unlikely.
Well, those factions were not in the habit of having one family in charge, but you have to remember that the sons of important generals and statesmen often got into power anyway due to the training and connections they received. For example, the Scipios(younger and older), and Hamalcar's three or so sons, were all generals. I think the current EB system works rather well, decreased fertility, but not nil. If 0.8 has recruitable generals this would also enhance the realism, but I'm not sure if it can.:inquisitive:
If 0.8 has recruitable generals this would also enhance the realism, but I'm not sure if it can.:inquisitive:
Other mods (for RTW 1.5) have recruitable generals so it must be possible.
Solution to the first one: Make family members have children less often.
Solution to the second one: I don't know, perhaps an EB member could make it so the AI does know what is going on.
I fail to see how having less childeren would make family members appear and disappear at will. It may be possible to do this with a lot of scripting, but it would play havoc with the campaign: imagine manoevring your army into the depths of Germany to face the rampaging Sweboz, only to find that your ten-star General has been reassigned at last moment due to his term being over, leaving the army leaderless in hostile territory. The poor A.I. really cannot cope with this. Also, since the player already is the Senate (he takes the decisions, after all), I don't think this would be very realistic.
NeoSpartan
10-12-2006, 18:39
OK... I haven't read ALL 20+ pages, but I have skimmed over a good amount.
I would like to suggest if the EB team can do something to stop cities that had thier population exterminaded 2X in less than 3 turns to Rebel again. Especially when that particullar city only has 500+ inhabitants due to all the killing, yet they still manage to rebel with 1000+ men army.
And another thing, a lot of the new building that give a Bonus to Happines, (weather 5% or 20%) don't have any effect on Happynes. It just stays the same. Can this be fixed?
Oh and another thing, sometimes when cities have the citizen happines in RED ~:pissed: . When I move from "military building policy" to "Growth policy" THERE IS NO CHANGE. This mostly happens on newly conquered cities (not all). Plus, sometimes once u take the city, exterminate the pop, move a large part of your army out there are 4X of rebellion (which is OK) BUT once I click on changing the Building policy to growth or any other, I get 6X of rebellion.
If these 3 things have been address, ignored this. But if it hasn't please take a look at this. Its serously hurting gameplay :ballchain:
Warlord 11
10-17-2006, 08:13
I had a thought, and I thought I would throw it out there. How about making the expansion (and maybe even homeland) resource building buildable, but taking a lot of time and money (similar to those port expansions). I thought this because before Alexander the Great, those Eastern territories would probably not be considered type two for the Macedonians. So it isn't historically inaccurate, and it won't upset game balance, because it takes so long and so much money to build.
Sorry if this isn't very coherent, it is late and I am tired.:laugh4:
CountArach
10-17-2006, 08:29
I had a thought, and I thought I would throw it out there. How about making the expansion (and maybe even homeland) resource building buildable, but taking a lot of time and money (similar to those port expansions). I thought this because before Alexander the Great, those Eastern territories would probably not be considered type two for the Macedonians. So it isn't historically inaccurate, and it won't upset game balance, because it takes so long and so much money to build.
Sorry if this isn't very coherent, it is late and I am tired.:laugh4:
That would be quite awesome, but I don't think the AI would build it often enough to justify the building slot needed.
Warlord 11
10-17-2006, 08:32
But I don't think it would require a building slot. The expantion government resourse is already in the game. It would just need to make it buildable. I think...
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
10-17-2006, 09:24
Or on similar train of thought, is it possible to change the 'homeland' resources in midgame through reforms or something? Like for Rome, at the start only Rome and Capua have homeland, then at polybian reforms all of non-Po Italy is homeland. And maybe tie this with making type 2 upgradable to type 1?
CountArach
10-17-2006, 09:26
But I don't think it would require a building slot. The expantion government resourse is already in the game. It would just need to make it buildable. I think...
Yeah i just realised this, shortly after posting.
Could I suggest that rebel settlements are much harder to invade and conquer. This could be done by causing the rebel settlements to get troop injections every turn. It would also add to the historical accuracy of the game making Britain and Germania harder to unite under a Casse/Sweboz banner.
Also could rebel forces be made up of a good mixture of troops (including elite units). This would make the rebels much more of a threat and would encourage them to place settlements under seige more often.
GiantMonkeyMan
10-17-2006, 21:08
i generally find that there are too many rebels in random cities with no meaning... it gets annoying when you end up fighting 20 militia type guys in somewhere slightly insignificant
NeoSpartan
10-17-2006, 21:59
i generally find that there are too many rebels in random cities with no meaning... it gets annoying when you end up fighting 20 militia type guys in somewhere slightly insignificant
so true
:wall:
Teleklos Archelaou
10-17-2006, 22:58
We feel the same way. But since more units are being added still, we dont' feel like spending a lot of time fixing rebel garrisons to start the game when we will have to go back over them again later too. We agree though guys - this will get fixed in time.
I was looking at the loading screens and noticed that the ones showing coins stated that these were the rulers of empires. That seems to be a word that calls for something bigger than what most factions start out as or become. Wouldn't "powers" be a better choice?
Teleklos Archelaou
10-18-2006, 04:02
A lot of them were changed. Not as much of a need for 'empires' in the new ones as they are divided up by peoples.
A living god
10-18-2006, 10:24
Im not sure if this is somewho already included in the game or it is even possible
To represtent romans importing of grain from sicily and eygpt to supply Roma have building, avaible to all roman cities with a type 1 govenrment
Effect: +2% population growth and +20% public order due to law
And +1% population growth and +10% public order due to law for every city controlled in sicily and along the nile.
That is 8 proviences so if you controled all 8 proveinces +10% pop growth
I want to Rome to have a realy massive population.
I want to Rome to have a realy massive population.
The city of Roma does grow quickly in EB.
Don't know if this has been proposed before. How about allowing cities only cable of building gov2, 3 and 4 to build buildings which compensate for the lack of government resources?
For an example a city with an expansion government resource can construct a building (for romans called romanisation) which will take 50-100 turns, but when constructed will allow the city to produce gov1 units and construct gov1 buildings. This building will that the bonus of gov1-gov2, because one doesn't have to demolish the gov2 building.
Aks K
Teleklos Archelaou
10-18-2006, 17:16
We've thought about a system like that since we first put the gov system into motion, and we still might do something like it, but it won't happen for 0.8. We're still too concerned about just getting a stable system out to you guys.
eadingas
10-18-2006, 17:46
Yup. If you recall our announcements, getting all that govt and mic building stuff working was the main reason for 0.8 delay. The system you describe is something we might eventually install in the game, and I'm one of its fervent supporters, but that will have to wait for when we have a new stable build to break ;)
(man, I feel like a CM on Blizzard's forum... ;)
Any chance of making elephants more powerful, since they are very bad for their current cost. Spear chuckers can usually decimate half of the elephants just in the first barrage. The elephants also can't charge through much, they just charge into the unit, which does nothing much, they then get bogged down immediatly and killed.
Reverend Joe
10-18-2006, 18:22
Elephants are rather tricky to use. Historically, they were indeed quite vulnerbale to skirmishers. If you can keep the skirmishers from hitting them, however, they are best used against the sides or rear of enemy lines; that way, they can bull right through the enemy. Their main point is to destroy enemy morale and trigger a mass rout.
...Dumbass.
:laugh4:
We've thought about a system like that since we first put the gov system into motion, and we still might do something like it, but it won't happen for 0.8. We're still too concerned about just getting a stable system out to you guys.Ok. But it shouldn't be that hard to make. I must say that I have looked a bit at the code. I do understand that it is most important to make a stable version. But for the final version (EB1.0) it could be a nice feature.
Aks K
Glad you like my name :laugh4:
Anyway, I'm not talking a small weakness to skirmishers, it is literally that one round of javelins will decimate half a squad of elephants, which I'm pretty sure isn't historically accurate.
One more thing; any chance you can do away with the "lover of beauty" trait, or atleast not make it so easy to get and common. It is very frustrating when trying to build up your general, you gain a much deserved command star, next turn, it's back down because of that trait that pops up.
I was looking at the Res Gestae mod, overall I did not like the direction they were going in I was just a little curious about it. The one thing I loved was the remodeling of city models on the strategic map, cities looked like cities instead of block structured sort of forts. Also they made unique diplomat models and skins in the strategic map. I think that it gave the world a much more pleasing look and feel.
-Dampiel-
Tellos Athenaios
10-20-2006, 18:36
RES GESTAE isn't finished yet, and is nowhere near as complete as EB is. Anyway, it's main 'selling point', still is the graphics: the grass textures, cities ports, ships, captains generals, and diplomats can be used as a sort of stand alone features. It's not all that playable, but it has some very nice stuff in it, which you can use as a make up for any other mod.
One of the more interesting experiments in this mod is the army script, that spawns an army whenever you gain a general in your initial capital. This scripting may be the solution to one of the problems EB has: AI pumping out nothing but elite units, thus creating both uber armies, and treasuries at level zero. Whenever you defeat their armies you have a sort of steamrollering power which is so powefull that you can entirely sweep away a faction if you are quick enough to realise it, and hit at the right time.
Is there a way to incorporate spolia opima into the traits system for Romans? Since I don't think there is a way to make two enemy family members fight themselves individually could these scenarios work?
1. If a family member's unit fights an opposing family member's as the only two units on the battlefield and the Roman member kills the opposing.
or, and much easier to make happen
2. If during a battle in general the two units engage and in the process the Roman family member kills the opposing family member.
I imagine that if it were to happen there would be a significant influence bonus in getting the trait.
Zalmoxis
10-21-2006, 06:58
I'd like to be able to destro every building in a conquered city, because it bothers me when I can't demolish walls or destroy roads of other civilizations and as a result I get culture penalties.
Ahh, don't we all love to burn those settlements to the ground. I've always wanted to destroy a settlement down to the size of a village.
Teleklos Archelaou
10-21-2006, 14:41
You can't destroy some of those things because their visibility on the map is hardcoded (once they are created).
Try it for yourself - give another destructible building level the roads capability or wall level. Then build it. Then destroy it. Surprise - the roads and walls are still there on the strat map! Well, not a surprise for us anyway - that's why we have to leave them as indestructible.
Case Solved: Hardcoded!
But we can still destroy farms and "governers house", since they don't show up on the map.
Geoffrey S
10-22-2006, 14:01
The informative texts in loading screens are usually too long to read properly, at least for me. Perhaps the historical battles screen could be used for such texts, in the description; for instance, a battle would be named "Facts: Lorica Hamata" or whatever, with the text providing detailed information and a clear indication that it is not an actual battle. This way, a whole wealth of information not directly relevant to gameplay could be included.
Tellos Athenaios
10-22-2006, 15:59
What about including the walls from Athens to Peiraios, just like the Akropolis and Delphinion?
Shigawire
10-22-2006, 16:05
This is partly a responsibility tucked under my wing, as the chief of siege warfare.. But I fear that this may only be possible with the new settlement system for M2TW.. Until we see such capabilities it's not the highest priority..
But this is certainly a dream of our's. Same for other famous cities like Syrakosion, Roma etc..
Teleklos Archelaou
10-22-2006, 16:07
Farms and governors' houses do show up on the map. Farms upgrades change the way the whole texture of the province looks (from plain grass to lines and fields) and governors houses change the way the city looks (goes from small village to huge city).
I think the amount of money the AI factions get are a little out of control and should be scaled down a little.
By 250 B.C., playing as Rome, I had takes the Italian peninsula, and was engaged in a fight for sicily, pretty historically accurate at this point, but the Aedui had defeated the Arverni, controlled most of modern day France, and had about 10 fully stacked armies it attacked me with.
I agree that if the AI does not get monetary boosts it's easy to conquer them, but to give them so much money that every rebel faction city is fully stacked, and all other AI factions get enough money to support more than a fully stacked army per city they control, is a little much. It makes every single battle in the game en epic battle and this just destroys any realism you hope to create with the mod...
I would really love to see a more realistic economy system that balances these issues.
-Dampiel-
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
10-23-2006, 07:20
Second.
https://img55.imageshack.us/img55/3481/scruffy2ze1.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
Laundreu
10-23-2006, 08:04
I think that could be fixed by fine-tuning the money added to AIs, in the short term. Perhaps 20,000 mnai instead of 30,000?
Any idea where that is located?
*Edit*
Ahhh....I found it....
Data/World/Maps/Campiagn/Imperial_Campiagn/Campaign_Script.txt (At the very bottom)
I changed all values to 10000, I might raise it if it is too little, I will test a few games and see how it goes...
hope that helps anyone who was having the same frustrations I was having :)
-Dampiel-
Ahh, Never knew that they affected the map. Well just for curiosity, why can you destroy ports, since they do show up on the map.
Oh yeah, I second that money thing.
LorDBulA
10-23-2006, 16:55
Campaign_Script.txt
This is campagne script. Its only run once at the very start of campagne. So you only changed amount of many factions get at the beginning of campagne.
To modify economy assistance durning the game go to Data/scripts/ebbs.txt file.
Oh wow thanks :)
I had a hard time finding that hehe...
-Dampiel-
This is partly a responsibility tucked under my wing, as the chief of siege warfare.. But I fear that this may only be possible with the new settlement system for M2TW.. Until we see such capabilities it's not the highest priority..
But this is certainly a dream of our's. Same for other famous cities like Syrakosion, Roma etc..
Kart-Hadast (should be Qart Hadasht) should have a unique building or something to represent its unique system of walls, 3 walls for most of the perimeter, and those had stables, barrackses and supply depos in them, plus an extending sea wall.
And I agree that the AI's cash increments should be a little altered though it seems so far to be fairly balanced in the new version, experimention with the unit creating upon general appearance would be interesting.
Teleklos Archelaou
10-25-2006, 02:45
I doubt we will split them by 0.8, but the unique in carthage will get split up into two for sure. The walls/port and the temple complex there (unlike other temples in our game so it's something of an exception).
I doubt we will split them by 0.8, but the unique in carthage will get split up into two for sure. The walls/port and the temple complex there (unlike other temples in our game so it's something of an exception).
YEAH! Qodesh Baal Hammon!!! And the Cothon!!!
Zalmoxis
10-25-2006, 05:46
Ok, here's something. I'll naturally play as the Getae, but am always bothered that the economy of the starting city sucks (because of the cost to maintain the army) and now I'm wondering if you could either lower the maintenance cost of the units you get initially or if you could make the first city (Buridava) a more advanced city to stop or at least make the turn by turn debt you will acquire a lot less.
Teleklos Archelaou
10-25-2006, 05:52
It ain't supposed to be easy for them. :grin: If they take control of Kallatis with their starting forces, things will get easier for them soon.
Tellos Athenaios
10-25-2006, 10:36
It's the same with Baktria, the Yuezhi, Pontos, and Hayasdan too. Simply a matter of figthing two brutal battles against surrounding rebel scum... and bide you time until your finances are stable once again. :grin:
Perhaps that's the way it's supposed to be.
It's the same with Baktria, the Yuezhi, Pontos, and Hayasdan too. Simply a matter of figthing two brutal battles against surrounding rebel scum... and bide you time until your finances are stable once again. :grin:
Perhaps that's the way it's supposed to be.
Makedon too.:no:
SOSamurai
10-25-2006, 12:46
I'm finding more often than not when starting an EB campaign with the factions i've played so far, it's generally easier to just disband these large starting armies or throw them at the enemy to purposely take huge losses just to fix my economy, and then rebuilding an army of units tailored to my immediate needs.
From what i've read, a lot of other players generally do this as well.
This is quite silly to be honest, as I feel forced to take several steps back before I can take one step forward, while every other faction is being gifted money every turn just for being the enemy (AI).
I can't really see the realism here either.
I can speak for Hayasdan, its starting postion shall be much harder and will require paitence. Attacking the provinces of Kartli or Egrisi will invoke the anger of Arche Seleukeia (AS had a treaty with the Caucasus Iberia during this period that lasted till 260BCE). Also I'm hoping that expanding too much (ie building gov1, gov2 and perhaps gov3) will force a situation with Arche Seleukeia for this period as well. But remember that AS will be concerned with the East for much of this time so you might be able expand under their nose. Scripting is bloody powerful.
For factions who were mobilized in our starting year, they will have large armies (notice that Casse had just signed a treaty with surrounding tribes, and so their forces are far smaller). Hayasdan will start with a much smaller starting army, to represent AS keeping a close eye on this dangerously independent kingdom.
Foot
Teleklos Archelaou
10-25-2006, 15:55
Yeah, and the seleukids seem to be more powerful than they were in 0.74.
As for disbanding some troops at the start, yeah, I usually do it too, or use them to attack immediately. This is the reason though: We have to have good armies for these factions to start with or the human player will just stomp other AI factions into the ground in the first few years. It's an argument of "it's too easy to conquer other territories at the start" vs. "my army is too advanced for my economy at the start", and since it's not too difficult to just disband soldiers, we err on leaning towards the latter.
Okay, this may seem a little random, but it is integral for an idea I am looking at proposing. Just how many potential unit slots does the game support?
500, and 255 models.
Foot
NeoSpartan
10-25-2006, 22:17
Yeah, and the seleukids seem to be more powerful than they were in 0.74.
As for disbanding some troops at the start, yeah, I usually do it too, or use them to attack immediately. This is the reason though: We have to have good armies for these factions to start with or the human player will just stomp other AI factions into the ground in the first few years. It's an argument of "it's too easy to conquer other territories at the start" vs. "my army is too advanced for my economy at the start", and since it's not too difficult to just disband soldiers, we err on leaning towards the latter.
Well, I usually go for attacking and takin as many towns as posible.
troops die out + new towns = my economy comes up. :2thumbsup:
I say don't change anything here.
Geoffrey S
10-25-2006, 22:25
The informative texts in loading screens are usually too long to read properly, at least for me. Perhaps the historical battles screen could be used for such texts, in the description; for instance, a battle would be named "Facts: Lorica Hamata" or whatever, with the text providing detailed information and a clear indication that it is not an actual battle. This way, a whole wealth of information not directly relevant to gameplay could be included.
Any takers at all?
Teleklos Archelaou
10-25-2006, 22:29
I don't think we have any additional unit load screens in 0.8. But there are a lot of other ones. Only one has much text.
You do remind me though - I need to go through and change the font on those to make them a little more legible. I don't think we will be dropping them, but we will try to make them easier to read at least.
We really wish we could specify when loading screens appeared, that would be so awesome...
Those of us with crappy computers have no problem reading the loading screens.....
Those of us with crappy computers have no problem reading the loading screens.....
I won a "prize" as a result of being able to read even the longest of loading screens at least twice through...
500, and 255 models.
Foot
Too few, perhaps in EB2 my grand scheme will come true, different game engine too, so no point yet debating whether my idea is possible. You will just have to wait to discover my genious!:laugh4:
Markus_Aurelius
10-27-2006, 11:25
I am wondering if it is possible to be able to lose men or even your general when spending long times in the enemy territory? Like is it possible that when your general gets the "Tightening there belts" or whatever trait, could it be scripted that the general recieves the "plague" with that trait? This way you will keep losing men til you get resupplied.
Teleklos Archelaou
10-27-2006, 14:38
Unfortunately there's no way we know of that this could be achieved. We've thought about it but it seems to be something that is thoroughly hardcoded.
I am wondering if it is possible to be able to lose men or even your general when spending long times in the enemy territory? Like is it possible that when your general gets the "Tightening there belts" or whatever trait, could it be scripted that the general recieves the "plague" with that trait? This way you will keep losing men til you get resupplied.
I doubt the EB members want to answer this again, they are probably tearing their hair out as they read your post. Its not your fault, they've just been asked this, and answered it, so many times. The answer is no, it is hardcoded.
*Edit*
OK, so TA did answer you, my fault.
Markus_Aurelius
10-27-2006, 19:04
ok well I guess I should have tried a search
I would like to see Macedon overhauled a bit,
They should be able to build a Satrapeia Makedonike anywhere they go. Thats what the macedonians did under Alexander.
They also trained persian units to fight in the Macedonian tradition, so once a Satrapeia is built, Macedonian units should be possible as well, at least Taxies Hoplites and Phalangites...
Currently, you stray not very far north of traditional homelands, and you are forced to build type 3-4 governments and only recruit barbarian units, which I really do not see the Macedonians using...
The persian units of Darius were just as foreign as the barbarian units to the north and the towns there should be able to be converted to Macedonian standards...
One of those towns, I think Tyris? (should have written it down...)can have a type 1 government, but cannot recruit ANY units at all, not even barbarian...
These little types of changes I think could really round out v8.0
-Dampiel-
-Praetor-
10-28-2006, 06:51
There`s something I`m curious:
As koinon hellenon, my FM`s ethnycities are for example athenian, rhodian, thessalioi, cretan, pontic greek, etc... but the thing is, if my armies conquer say makedon, why not having generals that are originary from makedonia, say makedon mesogaios, etc?
When I`m playing as epeiros, why not having generals which ethnicities are tarantinoi, samnite, or why not, roman if I conquer those regions?
I presume you see where I`m going. As Koinon Hellenon, I have generals that come from the pontic area, even though I haven`t set a foot in that area... but even though I have conquered makedonia, epeiros or Illyria, I haven`t got any generals from that area.
The thing is, can my FM have the ethnicities from the regions I conquer?
The same should be applied to the seleukids, celts, etc...
Bye.
PS: Probably is hardcoded, and the trait pool for the factions cannot be changed once the campaign starts...
There`s something I`m curious:
As koinon hellenon, my FM`s ethnycities are for example athenian, rhodian, thessalioi, cretan, pontic greek, etc... but the thing is, if my armies conquer say makedon, why not having generals that are originary from makedonia, say makedon mesogaios, etc?
When I`m playing as epeiros, why not having generals which ethnicities are tarantinoi, samnite, or why not, roman if I conquer those regions?
I presume you see where I`m going. As Koinon Hellenon, I have generals that come from the pontic area, even though I haven`t set a foot in that area... but even though I have conquered makedonia, epeiros or Illyria, I haven`t got any generals from that area.
The thing is, can my FM have the ethnicities from the regions I conquer?
The same should be applied to the seleukids, celts, etc...
Bye.
PS: Probably is hardcoded, and the trait pool for the factions cannot be changed once the campaign starts...
Eventually all factions will be able to draw from ethnicities of conquered regions, but only if they did so historically! The thing is, when you first conquer a province, unless you share a very similar culture as that region (or a group within that region) it is very unlikely that you would go around hiring the locals for fighting (the hellenes will probably have the largest number of ethnicities as they grow larger). Basically this is planned but designing and implementing ethnicities takes time and 0.8 will focus on different areas.
Foot
-Praetor-
10-28-2006, 08:06
The thing is that I was thinking about achemenid`s policys (and also alexander`s in some ways), when the persians conquered a region, for example Lycia, they hired Croesus and made him counselor... the same happened in other cases... Hippies (Hipías in spanish...) took active part in Darius`s expedition in the 1st persian war...
But I think you are right, those are exceptions, no conquered nation`s general would work for their vanquisher...
Tellos Athenaios
10-28-2006, 11:56
On the other hand that's how the Romans ruled their 'homeland': as long as the local elite remained loyal to Rome, they'd remain 'in the saddle'. According to EB, this is how the Epeirote kingdom was governed too.
On the other hand that's how the Romans ruled their 'homeland': as long as the local elite remained loyal to Rome, they'd remain 'in the saddle'. According to EB, this is how the Epeirote kingdom was governed too.
That doesn't mean they would become a Family Member (whatever the family member means for different factions).
Foot
Tellos Athenaios
10-28-2006, 14:43
Those FM's are a substitute for the whole lot of generals, politicians, governors etc. In this way those people I mentioned prior to this post are pretty much that what is represented by the game's FM's. After all, lots of them would decide on making carreer in Rome for example and then become, say, a senator.
I think there must be a Hyasdan voice mode. I mean there must be a voice mod in the armenian language. If it's possible that would be very cool.:2thumbsup:
I think there must be a Hyasdan voice mode. I mean there must be a voice mod in the armenian language. If it's possible that would be very cool.:2thumbsup:
Already planned.
Foot
if you need some one who can talk Armenian (Hayeren) for the voices I would like to help :yes:
if you need some one who can talk Armenian (Hayeren) for the voices I would like to help :yes:
I may have to call that offer in once 0.8 gets out. How good are you at translating as well?
Foot
Not so bad if you need something translated from the english to the armenian language I could do that. If I can help with hayasdan ask and I will do what I can.
Tellos Athenaios
11-02-2006, 23:32
What about altering the greek unit descriptions a little, to make them appear with greek symbols rather than latin ones?
Like this:
https://img249.imageshack.us/img249/747/0015nu0.th.jpg (https://img249.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0015nu0.jpg)
What about altering the greek unit descriptions a little, to make them appear with greek symbols rather than latin ones?
I would say Greek first and then Latin transliteration second.
Tellos Athenaios
11-03-2006, 21:00
It's not final by any means.
You'll have noticed that for example all the accents are missing, and the spiritus isn't properly taken care of yet. It was just to show what I meant, anyway, because since I'm not into the spelling of ancient Greek, (I don't have a clue as to the correct placement of accents), I won't be able to do this properly unless I have examples in ancient Greek (which I haven't).
I'm still curious, though, about the opinion of the team on the possibility of altering the descriptions in the way I have proposed.
That idea of mine could be extended to buildings, and perhaps characters too.
Zalmoxis
11-04-2006, 03:12
Ok, I've started several campaigns as the Dacians to see what could be done to fix the economy early on. You said you wouldn't make the city more advanced, and that's fine, but my problem is that there is a large army of horse archers to the north east of the faction heir's starting position. This army always attacks, and you would have to get your troops together to fight them off. Is it possible to remove this army?
Yeah by destroying them. :laugh4:
Had a short campaign with the Dacians, got most my guys marched East, on the way I met an enemy force and those horse archers attacked from behind. Got squished in the middle. I won but it was a mess. Although I got a reinforcement CTD afterwards and couldn't be bothered to replay despite a patch came out to fix it days later. Moral of the story is, if I can beat them when they have an extra force you can be beat them no problem.
The unit selection in costom battles definitley needs clearing up. It's just one big mess of mercs and faction units.
The unit selection in costom battles definitley needs clearing up. It's just one big mess of mercs and faction units.
Yes it does need cleaning up. There are so many peasant unit cards for some factions that you cannot tell the difference between each unit. I do think, however, that this sort of thing will be fixed in 0.8 or 1.0.
Dumbass: I like your name, it's kind of funny. I think that you may end up in the HoF 2006 for such a humorous user name. :thumbsup:
Heh, thanks. But what's HoF?
The unit selection in costom battles definitley needs clearing up. It's just one big mess of mercs and faction units.
I'm sorry, that won't change, it has to do with the eb recruitment system.
Heh, thanks. But what's HoF?
Hall of Fame (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
Teleklos Archelaou
11-05-2006, 22:16
I doubt we will switch to letters out of the english alphabet for those names. We did have this discussion a long time ago internally. People who don't know greek (or these other languages) can't really read or pronounce the names if we do that. The only exception to this is the 'v' for 'u' in the Latin, and we had a big discussion on that, but we felt that virtually everyone could still read the names even without knowing Latin.
-Praetor-
11-05-2006, 23:05
The only exception to this is the 'v' for 'u' in the Latin, and we had a big discussion on that, but we felt that virtually everyone could still read the names even without knowing Latin.
Yeah, it`s kinda weird the first times you read those names, but one gets accustomed after a few days of faithful EB play...
PS: About the subject, I just noticed that Avlvs Brittanicus`s nick, in the "Brittanicus" part it has an "u" and not a "v"... why is that?
PS2: Ok, that was a weird observation from my part, just couldn`t help asking it... :sweatdrop:
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
11-06-2006, 01:00
I'm not a big fan of 'v's as 'u's, for one thing it doesn't seem to go well with the RTW font. But I have gotten used to it.
PS. I have noticed the 'u' in Avlvs Brittanicus's name as well and wanted to ask... :sweatdrop:
(no offense or anything)
How about including an additional stategic element as field costs for player armies outside of settlements as a simulation for food, transport, camp... costs?
1000 in homeland; even more expansive in enemy territory: 2000 ?
Only for the player because the AI can't handle it.
Example julii, same for other factions (including in your 4tpy script)
;################################################Field costs################
monitor_event CharacterTurnEnd FactionType romans_julii
and FactionIsLocal
and not EndedInSettlement
and not AgentType = admiral
and not AgentType = spy
and not AgentType = diplomat
and not AgentType = assassin
and InEnemyLands
console_command add_money romans_julii, -2000
end_monitor
monitor_event CharacterTurnEnd FactionType romans_julii
and FactionIsLocal
and not EndedInSettlement
and not AgentType = admiral
and not AgentType = spy
and not AgentType = diplomat
and not AgentType = assassin
and not InEnemyLands
console_command add_money romans_julii, -1000
end_monitor
scourgeofrome
11-06-2006, 14:11
How about including an additional stategic element as field costs for player armies outside of settlements as a simulation for food, transport, camp... costs?
1000 in homeland; even more expansive in enemy territory: 2000 ?
Only for the player because the AI can't handle it.
Example julii, same for other factions (including in your 4tpy script)
;################################################Field costs################
monitor_event CharacterTurnEnd FactionType romans_julii
and FactionIsLocal
and not EndedInSettlement
and not AgentType = admiral
and not AgentType = spy
and not AgentType = diplomat
and not AgentType = assassin
and InEnemyLands
console_command add_money romans_julii, -2000
end_monitor
monitor_event CharacterTurnEnd FactionType romans_julii
and FactionIsLocal
and not EndedInSettlement
and not AgentType = admiral
and not AgentType = spy
and not AgentType = diplomat
and not AgentType = assassin
and not InEnemyLands
console_command add_money romans_julii, -1000
end_monitor
Please don't do that. I'm sure some people don't want to spend all their money on building armies and paying unit support just to have to pay even more money for armies (oh, and wouldn't that make you have to pay money for every little army outside a city).
This may be a lot of work, but I read that Imperium total war (now dead) were going to script civil wars and famous invasions, like the second Punic war, or the teutonic invasions. I don't really know how it would work, but maybe this idea could be worked on and included in any future versions, as it adds more spice to the game.
-Praetor-
11-06-2006, 18:59
This may be a lot of work, but I read that Imperium total war (now dead) were going to script civil wars and famous invasions, like the second Punic war, or the teutonic invasions. I don't really know how it would work, but maybe this idea could be worked on and included in any future versions, as it adds more spice to the game.
But if you conquer germania with the aeduii, then there would be no historical teutonic invasion... the fact is that if your game develops in a different way to what happened historically (which happens 100% of times), then there would be no point of scripting the Cimbrian Wars, Cesar`s Civil War, or the Yuezhi/Tocharian Invasion of Baktria...
Don`t get me wrong, I would love to fight against a punic mercenary army that crosses the alps commanded by someone named Hannibal (even though the smartness of the AI would spoil the historical feeling to be fighting against such general)... but wouldn`t you feel strange if, after you conquered and assimilated germania and scandinavia with the arvernii, and the romans are vanquished, some scroll pops up and say "A number of germanic tribes that dwelled on the scandinavian area, of which the most numerous and warlike are the cimbrian and the teutons, depart from their homeland to find a better place to live. So beware! if they cross through your lands and you are in their way... rumours are that they are heading towards the po valley, towards roman lands!!!"...
:speechless:
To be a properly historical event, that would requiere the condition of the subsistance of the Romans as a faction, and the scandinavian zone to be controlled either by the Sweboz, or to be rebel.
What I do agree, is that there could be mass migrations of peoples, originated by script, and composed of zonal units. For example, a vast migration of nomads (represented by some 2 or 3 full stacks) originated from the pontic steppe, towards the danubian area... or why not, a migration of celtic tribes, originated in the narbonensis area, towards the po valley in cisalpine gaul.
That wouldn`t requiere the condition of the existance of the helvetii, sarmatians, teutons/sweboz as a faction, since the race/culture/people groupings would subsist in most cases troughout the game, even after foreign conquest (unless the conquering nation aplies a massive genocide in such magnitude, that even the ZOR units dissapear).
It would rock if there could be scripted invasions and migrations, represented by the popping of some rebel full stacks in a certain region, and the scripted migration of those full stacks towards a certain settlement, killing every one that gets in their way. :grin:
:2cents:
Cheers!
Tellos Athenaios
11-06-2006, 19:23
I doubt we will switch to letters out of the english alphabet for those names. We did have this discussion a long time ago internally. People who don't know greek (or these other languages) can't really read or pronounce the names if we do that. The only exception to this is the 'v' for 'u' in the Latin, and we had a big discussion on that, but we felt that virtually everyone could still read the names even without knowing Latin.
On the other hand: (a while ago) you started a thread about displaying both a building's name and a 'translation' into English. That translation would be some way of adressing the problem you mentioned.
And, maybe it's just me, but somehow it would feel better if the team added (that is, just adding, not removing their Latin counterparts per se) the original names. (:idea2: Seeing that the EB installer gives anyone the option to include and exclude certain features, such as the Latin Voice Mod, I wondered: would it be possible to include some separate descr.txt files that overwrite the original ones if someone wanted to? These files could contain all descriptions with the appropiate languages instead of 'Latin' version of the original ones.)
Note: I've noticed that while replacing any 'u' in the names of units, buildings and characters, EB has kept every 'u' in the starting provinces of the Romani. Why?
Well the conditions for Hannibal invading Italy would really only require Carthage to own a particular amount of provinces in Spain, and a hatred for the Romans, which happens a lot.
Civil wars don't have to be the one's that actually happened, just if your empire gets divided by unloyal and loyal generals (Idea for EB2 as I doubt it would work for RTW).
Slartibardfast
11-08-2006, 20:36
I'm still a big fan of the "battle field booty" idea raised about 16 pages back.
If the EB Team are tossing this around and thinking of implementing such an idea in future builds, could this be done by using a similar screen to that at the end of sieges. The one which gives the occupy, enslave and exterminate options with there various cash bonuses. Except with only the one option saying "Well done son" here's x amount of cash and x amount of slaves to be distributed to settlements or similar.
Tellos Athenaios
11-08-2006, 22:33
Like: using a script that counts the number of soldiers that don't leave the battle alive...
Some questions though:
is there a way of counting the various numbers of the various units that are sent into the fray? So destroying a lot of thorakitai could be worth more than destroy a bunch of akontistai, to reflect the fact that the latter don't have such expensive equipment as the first?
Will your own soldiers be counted in as well, giving that it would have been quite unlikely to strip your own (dead) men from all that could be worth a few minai?
NeoSpartan
11-09-2006, 01:40
How about including an additional stategic element as field costs for player armies outside of settlements as a simulation for food, transport, camp... costs?
1000 in homeland; even more expansive in enemy territory: 2000 ?
Only for the player because the AI can't handle it.
.....
I really, really like this idea. An army outside a settlement costs more than the same army inside a settelement, and an army in enemy territory costs even. It bring in a realistic element called: LOGISTICS (currently it only happens when a General leads the army)
BUT IF this is to be implemented, then the player shouldn't have such a crappy economy, OR the AI shouldn't get so much cash bonus.
scourgeofrome
11-09-2006, 02:03
Quick question.Will I be able to play BI and Alexander with .08 downloaded?
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
11-09-2006, 10:48
I was thinking about the "Epic Stone Wall" and how everyone hates it... My suggestion is this: Rather than removing epic walls, the normal stone wall should be changed. If the 'stone wall' was changed to be a smaller, weaker, uglier wall, then the 'large stone wall' was made to be like the current 'stone wall' and 'epic' was made to 'large' ("downgrading" all the walls and putting a new one in). My thinking behind this is that alot of cities had walls made of stone around them, but not all of them had quality stone wall around them. Mud brick wall for example.
The problem is, this would require new battle map and strat map models and building modelers seem to be the one thing every mod is missing.
Tellos Athenaios
11-09-2006, 12:40
Quick question.Will I be able to play BI and Alexander with .08 downloaded?
Probably not, as BI is RTW 1.6, and not 1.5 - the RTW version EB 0.8 will be using.
There might be a way around this though (IF it is possible to have both a working version of RTW 1.0 and RTW BI):
first install Vanilla RTW, then make a backup of 1.0;
then install BI over the original RTW 1.0;
make another backup of your 1.0 folder;
patch it that backup to 1.5;
install EB 0.8;
play.
The second backup is just for safety: if something should go all wrong, you still have 1.0. You could therefore skip the second backup, and patch your first to 1.5 on which you then could install EB 0.8 and play it.
As I don't have either BI, or Alexander, I'm not sure though: still you could find out for yourself, by trying to do these steps for EB 0.7.4.
You could even try the same with Alexander, resulting in at least 3 versions of RTW on your computer...
Ah no, BI does not overwrite vanilla files (and neither does EB), it sort of acts as an add-on, whereby a seperate .exe tells the game to access different files (BI files) instead of vanilla files. BI files are 1.6, but vanilla files are still 1.5. This is roughly similar to how EB works at the moment. All its files are installed in a seperate folder in the RTW folder, and we use a shortcut with the command line -mod:eb to tell the RomeTW.exe to look in the EB folder for files rather than the vanilla folder. The great thing about this is that you don't need a seperate install of RTW to play EB and vanilla (though other mods that don't use the -mod: command will need a seperate install as usual).
Foot
scourgeofrome
11-09-2006, 13:39
Okay I really don't understand all of what you just said (I'm not really computer literate).So what your saying is I can access vanilla stil with EB installed.1.How and 2. Does that mean I can still add on BI and Alexander after .8 comes out. And for backing up files,how do I do that.I tried it once but nothing worked when I tried to install it to the new copy.
What about giving carth some mercs to hire in there "homeland"? I'm playing a carth game right now, but I cant find any.
From what I've understand carth used mostly mercs and alomst no native carth soldiers.
As it is right now its hard to play historical, because I cant find any mercs and it takes years to transport iberians back and forth. (plus iberia doesnt have that many mercs eighter)
The aim should be to make the historical way the easy way, since I pretty sure carth didnt use, gauls, iberians, numbs and whatever only to make it more of a challange. :P
Okay I really don't understand all of what you just said (I'm not really computer literate).So what your saying is I can access vanilla stil with EB installed.1.How and 2. Does that mean I can still add on BI and Alexander after .8 comes out. And for backing up files,how do I do that.I tried it once but nothing worked when I tried to install it to the new copy.
0.8 works in the same way BI works. You'll notice, with BI installed, that there is a seperate folder for BI within the RTW folder, it is in essence a completey different set of files from vanilla. BI is accessed through a seperate .exe file, not the RomeTW.exe for normal RTW. Because they use different .exe files, they are essentially different games and thus have different version numbers. When BI is 1.6, RTW is 1.5. In just the same way that you can choose to play either RTW or BI from the same install, we have modded EB so that you can choose to play RTW and EB from the same install. We are able to do this because we can add a command line to the RomeTW.exe that tells the game to look in a seperate "EB" folder for the modified game files that we use.
This means that on the same install, ie in the same RTW directory, you can have vanilla RTW, BI, Alexander and EB all working seperately and correctly.
the data files for vanilla RTW are found here:
Rome - Total War/data
the BI data files are found here:
Rome - Total War/BI/data
The EB data files are found here:
Rome - Total War/EB/data
Because they are all in seperate data folders the files don't affect each other and thus the all the different games can be played without fear of messing the others up.
Foot
scourgeofrome
11-09-2006, 22:46
0.8 works in the same way BI works. You'll notice, with BI installed, that there is a seperate folder for BI within the RTW folder, it is in essence a completey different set of files from vanilla. BI is accessed through a seperate .exe file, not the RomeTW.exe for normal RTW. Because they use different .exe files, they are essentially different games and thus have different version numbers. When BI is 1.6, RTW is 1.5. In just the same way that you can choose to play either RTW or BI from the same install, we have modded EB so that you can choose to play RTW and EB from the same install. We are able to do this because we can add a command line to the RomeTW.exe that tells the game to look in a seperate "EB" folder for the modified game files that we use.
This means that on the same install, ie in the same RTW directory, you can have vanilla RTW, BI, Alexander and EB all working seperately and correctly.
the data files for vanilla RTW are found here:
Rome - Total War/data
the BI data files are found here:
Rome - Total War/BI/data
The EB data files are found here:
Rome - Total War/EB/data
Because they are all in seperate data folders the files don't affect each other and thus the all the different games can be played without fear of messing the others up.
Foot
Does that mean right now I can install Bi with the .74 version of EB?
No, for two reasons. EB 0.74 does not use the - mod: build and so overwrites the vanilla data files. Only if the mod uses the -mod: build can you use BI and vanilla RTW with it. The second reason is that EB 0.74 must have RTW 1.2, but BI must have RTW 1.3 to work (and automatically upgrades RTW when installed).
Foot
Geoffrey S
11-10-2006, 00:09
I don't know if it's hardcoded, but is it possible to set the amount of mnai gained for destroying a building? If so, perhaps a building can be created representing a money stockpile for times of need; it takes a while to build, but when completed it can be destroyed when money is running low for instant cash to build much-needed units/buildings.
I don't know if it's hardcoded, but is it possible to set the amount of mnai gained for destroying a building? If so, perhaps a building can be created representing a money stockpile for times of need; it takes a while to build, but when completed it can be destroyed when money is running low for instant cash to build much-needed units/buildings.
Impossible, its a set amount that cannot be changed per building.
Foot
it would be good if you could enable cheats in the next version.
auto win attacker/defender is really useful for players who are sick of fighting 'easy win' battles all the time. once youve done it 1000 times before it just eats away at your enjoyment of the game and theres nothing new to learn from them. autocalc on VH difficulty tends to result in obscene casualties so its not really an option.
i know in the next version that rebel rates will be adjustable, which i certaintly take advantage of, but this would still be useful against those inumerable swarms of tiny stacks factions send out to decorate the landscape.
besides which i think cheating is something people should be able to do if they want, theres no reason to impose that restriction on people. if you dont want to cheat then you simply dont enter the codes.
I think those cheats require a script to be made, or something.
Since they don't work in vanilla either.
There IS a reason to ban it. For example in AoE III I now can't resist typing "tuck tuck tuck" to get myself a huge evil monster truck that kills everything nearby. Banning cheats helps people resist cheating.
Markus_Aurelius
11-10-2006, 20:32
cheating DOES work, i use that auto win cheat only on VH Campain difficulty and only to win those sea battles were you know you should win but you never do..
Tellos Athenaios
11-10-2006, 20:36
Impossible, its a set amount that cannot be changed per building.
Foot
Thus, perhaps, if the cost to build it would equal the returned mnai when it's destroyed... or has it to do something with a fixed part of what the construction cost?
Tellos Athenaios
11-10-2006, 20:40
it would be good if you could enable cheats in the next version.
auto win attacker/defender is really useful for players who are sick of fighting 'easy win' battles all the time. once youve done it 1000 times before it just eats away at your enjoyment of the game and theres nothing new to learn from them. autocalc on VH difficulty tends to result in obscene casualties so its not really an option.
On the other hand, if one used a little more strategy, one would simply raise an army that drives those pesky rebels from your lands by attacking them only once each turn - and thus doesn't actually have to fight them, because the rebels flee from it. :yes:
Zalmoxis
11-11-2006, 01:50
In my game, I took over a city which had farms already built. I built a granary, but the farm is still there. Is this supposed to happen?
granaries are a separate building from farms, not an upgrade.
Tellos Athenaios
11-12-2006, 17:11
:inquisitive:
Just me, or isn't it a bit odd that, playing as AS, I can't recruit Iudaioi taxeis in my Homeland (that is in Antiocheia, and Damaskos - where the prerequired substantial Jewish populations exist)?
I was wondering about the Haravautish rebels (Alexandreiapolis - if I'm not mistaken), and the Harauvatish Asabara units, are the latter not part of the former 'tribe'? Or am I simply misled by the similarity in both names?
However, if I haven't fooled myself, then maybe that's something to fix in 0.8.
Tellos Athenaios
11-20-2006, 22:38
Another thing about descriptions.
I've noticed that in various descriptions (e.g. those of the larger ships), the reader is called basileus. Nothing wrong with that at first, but if you look more closely you can see that you're called 'ho basileos' or 'ho basileus', or just 'basileus' when in fact you should be called '(o) basileu'. This is because the vocativus form of 'basileus' is not 'basileus' as you might suspect from the fact that the word doesn't have an -os prefix in the nominativus, but 'basileu' instead.
Secondly, even if you're playing as KH you're still called a basileus, when in fact that title only goes for a Spartan faction leader. Although even when your faction leader is a Spartan, he isn't actually the basileus of the whole faction itself. (He is only the basileus of the city state of Sparte.)
Now to advoid confusion, and make life much more easy, I suggest you scrap all basileus bits in the descriptions and replace those with the single word 'anax'. Although a very ancient word, even in those days, dating as far back as the 'glory' days the Greeks loved to refer to (the Troian war for example), it was still commonly used by writers such as Euripides. This word is to be translated with either 'Sir', or 'mylord' depending on the occasion, and the vocativus form is the same as the nominativus form.
EDIT: If you're not convinced, or consider the word a bit outdated for some reason, here is another possibility. Nominativus: 'Kurios'. Vocativus: 'Kurie'. It's the word used to refer to God in the Bible. And, as you'll know, it means: 'Lord'.
Corinthian Hoplite
11-21-2006, 15:54
Hmmm, I think african, mediterranean and northern units should have different skin colours. I simply don't like to see some Ptolemaic units with the right skin colour and others looking like those whitey Makedonians. Just make some body skins darker according to the faction. Note: mercenaries should obviously have the skin colour apropriate to the region they come from.
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
11-21-2006, 21:09
Most Ptolemaic soldiers were Macedonians.
Corinthian Hoplite
11-21-2006, 21:30
Your skin tone doesn't exactly keep the same after decades, even generations, living in north Africa, and the Makies surelly had children with the natives...
Your skin tone doesn't exactly keep the same after decades, even generations, living in north Africa, and the Makies surelly had children with the natives...
Egypt was taken by Alexander in 331BC. By 272BC there would still have been a large amount of "pure blooded" Macedonians. If you look carefully at the Egyptian set of units you will see some that look very native Egyptian. These are the units that have either had children with the natives or are natives themselves. It is also important to note that only pure blooded Macedonians would probably have been allowed to join the ranks of Ptolemy's elite units.
Corinthian Hoplite
11-21-2006, 21:54
Ok, thanks. I still think mediterraneans should have a darker skin than Casse and Swèboz (sp?)
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
11-22-2006, 02:54
Ok, thanks. I still think mediterraneans should have a darker skin than Casse and Swèboz (sp?)
I recall a thread about six months ago about differing skin colors, but the team didn't want to do it because it is hard to know the true skin colors of people that don't exsist or have been breading with germanic invaders for 1500 years. Also there is the part about redoing all the work and the racism issues.
Kierkegaard
11-22-2006, 04:12
perhaps 0.8 could have Navigable Rivers like Ancient Empires 2.0 minimod for RTRPE 1.6, that would be interesting.
CountArach
11-23-2006, 06:40
Jus a quesiton about Gaesatae. I was reading Polybius today, and in Book 2, Part 22, he mentions that they are hired and that the Gaesatae are essentially mercenaries, so I was wondering if there are any plans on making them Mercenaries? Also I was wondering why they are recruitable to the Aedui?
Thanks guys!
Jus a quesiton about Gaesatae. I was reading Polybius today, and in Book 2, Part 22, he mentions that they are hired and that the Gaesatae are essentially mercenaries, so I was wondering if there are any plans on making them Mercenaries? Also I was wondering why they are recruitable to the Aedui?
Thanks guys!
They should be in as mercenaries for v.80. The Aedui can recruit them because that's their native faction.
Tellos Athenaios
11-23-2006, 07:52
I was wondering, again, about something I noticed in EB. Whenever my thureophoroi or thorakitai are in melee and I order them to attack an other unit than they were attacking first, they start to 'throw' javelins instead. Now, whenever they do such a thing they get slaughtered in droves (a unit of peltastai once killed half my unit of thorakitai that way :wall: ). Could this be due to the 'missile' class of the infantry? Some way to fix it?
Also: aren't the current overhand style animations just missile animations? If so, you could try the overhand style formation in XGM (only if you get permission of course) instead.
Darkarbiter
11-23-2006, 07:52
0.8 works in the same way BI works. You'll notice, with BI installed, that there is a seperate folder for BI within the RTW folder, it is in essence a completey different set of files from vanilla. BI is accessed through a seperate .exe file, not the RomeTW.exe for normal RTW. Because they use different .exe files, they are essentially different games and thus have different version numbers. When BI is 1.6, RTW is 1.5. In just the same way that you can choose to play either RTW or BI from the same install, we have modded EB so that you can choose to play RTW and EB from the same install. We are able to do this because we can add a command line to the RomeTW.exe that tells the game to look in a seperate "EB" folder for the modified game files that we use.
This means that on the same install, ie in the same RTW directory, you can have vanilla RTW, BI, Alexander and EB all working seperately and correctly.
the data files for vanilla RTW are found here:
Rome - Total War/data
the BI data files are found here:
Rome - Total War/BI/data
The EB data files are found here:
Rome - Total War/EB/data
Because they are all in seperate data folders the files don't affect each other and thus the all the different games can be played without fear of messing the others up.
Foot
Ive been thinking.... doesnt that meen that having the BI folder is essentially the same as having -mod. Because i know that BI mods that alter vanilla files only can work with the BI directory deleted and since 1.5 is the same as 1.6 the only difference between 1.6 and 1.5 is the BI.exe otherwise BI may as well be a mod.
Im a little hazy about the only difference between 1.5 and 1.6 being the exe (and BI folder) though can anyone correct me/back me up? Obviously registry says its 1.6 too but thats not important.
I was wondering, again, about something I noticed in EB. Whenever my thureophoroi or thorakitai are in melee and I order them to attack an other unit than they were attacking first, they start to 'throw' javelins instead. Now, whenever they do such a thing they get slaughtered in droves (a unit of peltastai once killed half my unit of thorakitai that way :wall: ). Could this be due to the 'missile' class of the infantry? Some way to fix it?
Also: aren't the current overhand style animations just missile animations? If so, you could try the overhand style formation in XGM (only if you get permission of course) instead.
Use alt right click to use alternate weopen (missle is allways primary weopen). If you use alt right click they will allways go into melee.
Corinthian Hoplite
11-23-2006, 17:48
Are Auxilia units going to exist in 0.8? I think I missed them, are they historically incorrect? What about militia units to act as garrissons?
Are Auxilia units going to exist in 0.8? I think I missed them, are they historically incorrect?
Have a look at the auxilla preview (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=64068).
Tellos Athenaios
11-23-2006, 19:06
Use alt right click to use alternate weopen (missle is allways primary weopen). If you use alt right click they will allways go into melee.
Yes, but the point is, that both thorakitai and thurephoroi aren't supposed to pretend that they are some sort of skirmisher. They should be the same sort of unit as hastati in this way that while intended for melee only they have the means to soften the enemy up before closing in. However when they have closed in, they should stick to melee, and to melee only - just like Vanilla Hastati and Principes do.
Methought that this 'fault' could be due to the fact that they are rated as missile infantry, whereas Vanilla Hastati are not.
:juggle:
Corinthian Hoplite
11-23-2006, 19:15
I'm looking forward to see realistic unit armour/shield/skill values. Vanilla and most mod's stats were so stupid. Ex: a unit with a helmet and greaves having no armour or two units having the same armour value with completely diferent types of armour, skill values based on gameplay rather than reality, all cavalry having 4 shield defense (regardless of the actual shield size) and infantry shields restricted to 2 and 5, representing it's size in a very rough manner.
Watchman
11-23-2006, 19:29
Naw. Any and all troops with precursor missile weapons will do that, or at least when they finally get into their thick virtual skulls they're ordered to shoot (they can be a bit slow on the uptake). If you right-click the enemy and they still have ammo left - ie. the cursor changes into that javelin thingy - you're telling them to fire at the enemy period, and if the command gets through the "fog of war" they'll soon start reloading and toss their javelins or whatever at the foe.
This is actually quite useful at times. There's quite a lot of units that have a low armour rating but quite a high defense skill and are thus rather difficult to kill in melee, but them javelins only care about the armour value (and shield)... Judicious use of this technique makes urban assaults against the unarmoured but skilled and numerous African eleutheroi with Libyans rather quicker, for example. And conversely if your unit has AP missiles and non-AP melee weapons (Scutarii come to mind), tossing a volley tends to reduce the numbers of heavily armoured enemies fairly quickly. That all missiles in EB (well, except the javelins on one of those Central Asian light cav... bit of an oversight that one, methinks) have kill rate of round 1 and no melee weapon had above 0.5 doesn't particularly hurt either.
That the soldiers drop everything else and turn into a bit of sitting ducks for the loading and firing sequence is of course a bit troublesome, but may well be worth it given the number of enemies that may well drop in one go. Plus in my experience the throwers usually don't actually suffer too badly, but then again I use Medium battle difficulty...
Anyway, the unit type designation doesn't AFAIK have any game-mechanical effect. It's just there to tell the AI and the assorted formation files where the unit in question is supposed to go and what it's supposed to do; the Other/Missile/Light/Heavy distinction in weapon type AFAIK has no real significance beyond what weapon upgrades the unit gets - in EB nothing gives the upgrade to Missile or Other, but conversely many units have their missiles (typically higher-end infantry with precursors) tagged as for example Light ("simple" in the EDU) instead of Missile ("archery" in the EDU, IIRC) and thus get the bonus (which incidentally affects both the ranged and melee attack value). Thus for example Thureophoroi (whose javelins are rated "missile") never get the upgrade, but Gaesatae (whose javelins are tagged as "simple"/Light) do.
Tellos Athenaios
11-23-2006, 19:47
Well that explains then, thanks Watchman.
Still wondering though about the 'unit' and 'description' thingies I stated before... :juggle:
Yes, but the point is, that both thorakitai and thurephoroi aren't supposed to pretend that they are some sort of skirmisher. They should be the same sort of unit as hastati in this way that while intended for melee only they have the means to soften the enemy up before closing in. However when they have closed in, they should stick to melee, and to melee only - just like Vanilla Hastati and Principes do.
Vanilla Hastati and Principes have the same javalin throwing problem. Used to drive me nuts. (Lost more than one unit of Hastati because of it before I learned Alt) Any unit that is melee but has a javalin WILL want to throw it if you order an attack, nomatter how retarted that doing so is. So it's vanilla thing and not just a thorakitai one. (Not of course if you hold Alt when ordering an attack)
Watchman
11-23-2006, 22:58
Still wondering though about the 'unit' and 'description' thingies I stated before... :juggle:Didn't I try to explain them in that last paragraph already ?
Okay, I'll try again. In the EDU Thureophoroi are given the unit type "spearmen" (or more specifically, "category - infantry" and "class - spearmen"). This tells the assorted formation text files and the AI what these units are used for and where they are put in the battle order, nothing more.
Now, the "tech type" of their primary weapon (the precursor javelin) is "archery". This is the one that appears as "Missile" in the unit info card - it's always the primary weapon whose type shows up there, period. The only effect this has is in the context of the weapon-upgrade blacksmithy building, which does boost Light and Heavy weapons (respectively the "tech types" "simple" and "blade" in the EDU) as well as armour, but not Missile weapons. Ergo, Thureophoroi never get the weapon upgrade as the engine only looks up the primary weapon's type in the context; that the spear the Thureos use for melee is typed "simple" doesn't interest it one bit. Ditto for quite a few other precursor-spearman units, such as Libyan Spearmen, Mala Gaeroas, Frameharjoz and so on. Dedicated skirmishers too.
Conversely Iberian Assault Infantry have their primary-weapon precursor javelins tagged as tech type "blade" (Heavy on the unit info card), and get the bonus point from blacksmiths. Ditto for most other swordsmen who have precursors - they're just about all designated as "simple" or "blade" and are thus upgrade-able.
To my knowledge this is the exact only effect that weapon attribute has.
Darkarbiter
11-24-2006, 09:16
You can change reload and fire times for units if you think they are taking too long to fire their missles.
Tellos Athenaios
11-24-2006, 10:54
Didn't I try to explain them in that last paragraph already ?
:sorry:
I was talking about a few previous posts of mine, on the previous page (page 30) of this thread. One about Iudaioi taxeis and Haravautish/Harauvatish, and another about 'ho basileus'/'ho basileos' and such in unit descriptions.
I apologize...
Watchman
11-24-2006, 12:16
I demand the twenty-something minutes of my life I spent typing that post back. :balloon2:
Tellos Athenaios
11-24-2006, 12:42
:laugh4:
I suggest:
1) You contact Slartibardfast
2) You ask him for a bistromath powered spacecraft
3) You travel through time and space, wherever/whenever you like to go
4) Plus you do so at an amazing speed, only matched by the improbability powered spacecraft
5) And you don't need to muck about with improbability factors.
Now, that sounds great, eh?
Corinthian Hoplite
11-24-2006, 19:17
Loading times really need to be shortened, they're about twice longer than vanilla's!!
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-24-2006, 19:21
Loading times really need to be shortened, they're about twice longer than vanilla's!!Well, RTW's scripts are 512KB. Our scripts are 9MB! So, there is a reason for that.
Corinthian Hoplite
11-24-2006, 19:26
Could someone please answer post #907? Thanks ;)
Aymar de Bois Mauri
11-24-2006, 19:45
I'm looking forward to see realistic unit armour/shield/skill values. Vanilla and most mod's stats were so stupid. Ex: a unit with a helmet and greaves having no armour or two units having the same armour value with completely diferent types of armour, skill values based on gameplay rather than reality, all cavalry having 4 shield defense (regardless of the actual shield size) and infantry shields restricted to 2 and 5, representing it's size in a very rough manner.Well, I had already told you a bit about this. EB uses a specific incremental system where all armour pieces are accounted for in regard to placement, quality and material used in it. The same goes for weapons who have different speed, lethality, power and are accounted for in accord to their performance as well as ease of use. Also the types of soldier are divided in several classes that reflect their conditioning/training as well as thier status.
Corinthian Hoplite
11-24-2006, 19:51
Well, I had already told you a bit about this. EB uses a specific incremental system where all armour pieces are accounted for in regard to placement, quality and material used in it. The same goes for weapons who have different speed, lethality, power and are accounted for in accord to their performance as well as ease of use. Also the types of soldier are divided in several classes that reflect their conditioning/training as well as thier status.
Oh, right, I didn't understand well what you had said earlier :sweatdrop:
These are great news, I'm always attentive to bugs/gliches and so unit stat's are some of my main concerns. I even modded all vanilla units to make their stats realistic...
I'm looking forward to see realistic unit armour/shield/skill values. Vanilla and most mod's stats were so stupid. Ex: a unit with a helmet and greaves having no armour or two units having the same armour value with completely diferent types of armour, skill values based on gameplay rather than reality, all cavalry having 4 shield defense (regardless of the actual shield size) and infantry shields restricted to 2 and 5, representing it's size in a very rough manner.
As Aymar has indicated, EB uses a very sophisticated system to determine the effects of Armor, and everything else for that matter. Without giving away the full details, here's a look at the different types of just one kind of armor:
Torso Armor
1 Skin
2 Shirt
3 Soft Leather Armor/Padded
4 Boiled Leather Armor/Linothorax
5 Chain/Scale
6 Cuirass/Quality Chain
And of course there are similar groups for shields, helmets, and leg armor, not to mention "adder" categories which can improve say Torso and Head armor (Cheek Guards, Chest plates, etc.)
Everything item has a value associated with it, and all is further factored by ability to protect from 1 side, both sides, and/or rear.
So if "complex and realistic" was your hope, sleep easy. :2thumbsup:
Corinthian Hoplite
11-24-2006, 23:53
As Aymar has indicated, EB uses a very sophisticated system to determine the effects of Armor, and everything else for that matter. Without giving away the full details, here's a look at the different types of just one kind of armor:
Torso Armor
1 Skin
2 Shirt
3 Soft Leather Armor/Padded
4 Boiled Leather Armor/Linothorax
5 Chain/Scale
6 Cuirass/Quality Chain
And of course there are similar groups for shields, helmets, and leg armor, not to mention "adder" categories which can improve say Torso and Head armor (Cheek Guards, Chest plates, etc.)
Everything item has a value associated with it, and all is further factored by ability to protect from 1 side, both sides, and/or rear.
So if "complex and realistic" was your hope, sleep easy. :2thumbsup:
I created a system like that for vanilla some time ago, being (unnecessarily) more complex, perhaps too complex :sweatdrop: Had a hard time creating the system, for it all to be destroyed when I formatted my PC... :furious3:
I'm glad to have the possibility of helping such a dedicated team.
Tellos Athenaios
11-25-2006, 00:01
Could someone please answer post #907? Thanks ;)
Maybe I've to try the same approach:
Could someone kind please answer posts 891 and 892 (page 30 of this thread)?
Many thanks in advance,
Corinthian Hoplite
11-25-2006, 00:22
I have yet another questions:
1. How will be classical hoplite animations? (if any) Are they like in other hellenic-period mods (good), or just a tweaked javelin animation (bad)?
2. Phalanxes, I don't play EB for quite some time, so forgive me if I'm being stupid: Do they still have officers? (very bad) How are they deployed, with or without gaps between them? (XGM) Without is obviously better...
EDIT: please don't forget about Tellos' post.
Teleklos Archelaou
11-25-2006, 00:49
While you may get answers, we are full on trying to get 0.8 out. If some suggestions are not commented upon from now till 0.8 is out, I hope you have a little bit of understanding about the context.
Tellos Athenaios
11-25-2006, 00:54
Of course, I do. I simply noticed that 'pointing' attention apparently pays off.
Anyway, do continue working on 0.8, the sooner it's out the better. :balloon3:
2. Phalanxes, I don't play EB for quite some time, so forgive me if I'm being stupid: Do they still have officers? (very bad) How are they deployed, with or without gaps between them? (XGM) Without is obviously better...
Yes, there will be officers, as previewed in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=71468). IIRC, there are no gaps between phalanxes in the current version of EB, so they probably won't be in 0.8 either.
I cannot answer your first question.
Corinthian Hoplite
11-25-2006, 18:09
Phalanxes with officers are a very bad idea, you can't form a solid line with them in the middle of your pikemen. I hope those officers are only for non phalanx infantry.
Kralizec
11-25-2006, 18:26
I'm not an EB member, but here goes...
I have yet another questions:
1. How will be classical hoplite animations? (if any) Are they like in other hellenic-period mods (good), or just a tweaked javelin animation (bad)?
Their animations haven't been previewed yet. Personally I didn't think the fs_javelin animation (that's what it was called, IIRC) were that bad.
2. Phalanxes, I don't play EB for quite some time, so forgive me if I'm being stupid: Do they still have officers? (very bad) How are they deployed, with or without gaps between them? (XGM) Without is obviously better...
In the current version of EB, none of the phalanx units have officers. I don't expect that the classical hoplites will get them either, but you'll have to wait till an EB member confirms that.
There's the new standard bearers (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=71468) (very sexy I might add), but I'm guessing that they're meant for hypapsistai, thureophoroi and similar units. I also vaguely recall something about a mounted standard bearer...
Corinthian Hoplite
11-25-2006, 19:08
Their animations haven't been previewed yet. Personally I didn't think the fs_javelin animation (that's what it was called, IIRC) were that bad.
I think it is bad, The problem with fs_javelis is they will either fight or walk with the wrong part of the spear, take your pick.
SigniferOne's animation pack has a good hoplite animation:
SigniferOne's Animations Pack, v0.8 Beta
Permissions:
This mod is available without restrictions for all personal use. Any other use, such as inclusion in other mods, requires explicit permission and is otherwise prohibited.
What's new:
- Complete conversion for fs_s1_gladius. All animations have been converted,
except walking/running anims, and of course turning during battle.
-- charge with gladius held level, not waving above the head
-- block high/block low, dodge high/dodge low much improved
-- matching "impact"/getting hit anims
-- appropriate attack during run
-- hold shield if knocked down
-- no taunting of enemy before battle
-- non-static "idle" animation, fully matching idle animations now
-- etc
- Complete conversionfor fs_s1_hoplite. All animations have been converted,
except turning during battle.
-- Fixed charge, does not skip any longer
-- Minimized skipping during attacks
-- block high/block low, dodge high/dodge low much improved
-- matching "impact"/getting hit anims
-- appropriate attack during run
-- no taunting of the enemy before battle
-- non-static "idle" animation
-- etc
- New faster and smoother javelinman animations,
-- improved efficiency of Romans and of skirmishers
-- animation is smoother and quicker to respond
- Relaxed swordsman stance available for all swordsmen, not just fs_s1_gladius
-- completely fixed (non jerky) and very smooth idle animations
-- non static, slightly moving "stand" animation
- a total of over 300 animations added to the game
-- All animation skeletons upgraded to be compatible with RTW 1.5/1.6
-- Speed variants for all infantry skeletons
Description:
The following animation skeletons are now available to be used:
FS_S1_HOPLITE (variants: fs_s1_slow_hoplite)
- no wild taunting
- classic hoplite stand position
- fully compatible charge
FS_S1_GLADIUS (variants: fs_s1_slow_gladius)
- no wild taunting for Romans during startup
- during a fight, holding the shield close and the gladius ready next to it
- stabbing fighting style with the gladius, no slashing
FS_S1_SWORDSMAN (variants: fs_s1_fast_swordsman, fs_s1_semi_fast_swordsman, fs_s1_slow_swordsman)
- holding the sword relaxed
- smooth idle animations
- non-static "stand" animation
- no "feint" animation to make fighting less jerky and more smooth
fs_S1_BARBSWORDSMAN (variants: fs_s1_fast_barbswordsman, fs_s1_semi_fast_barbswordsman, fs_s1_slow_barbswordsman)
- everything included in fs_s1_swordsman
- no thrust for barbarians, only big slashes, as their swords were not designed
for thrusts and even had blunt points
FS_S1_ARCHER (variants: fs_s1_fast_archer, fs_s1_semi_fast_archer)
- aiming vertically to the sky, rather than horizontally, and fully drawing the bow
FS_S1_HC_ARCHER
- when aiming, holding the bow vertically rather than horizontally, and drawing
the bow with full power
FS_S1_FOREST_ELEPHANT_JAVELINRIDER
- javelinmen can stand on elephants and shoot javelins
- good complement to charion javelinman skeleton in 1.5/1.6
Where to download:
http://www.twcenter.net/downloads/db/index.php?mod=464
How to install:
Unzip the four files into Data/animations folder, overwriting the existing four files
there (always remember to back everything up!).
How to use:
Go into descr_model_battle.txt and change which units use which skeletons (i.e. give fs_s1_hc_archer to Parthian horse archers, change Roman infantry from fs_javelinman, fs_swordsman to fs_javelinman, fs_s1_gladius, etc).
Supplementary note: I strongly recommend that for using fs_s1_hoplite, you remove the soldier's secondary weapon (sword), and also remove the "phalanx" ability; however giving them "shield wall" works great. This is for best results. To do all this, open export_descr_unit.txt, search for your hoplite unit, change his secondary weapon stats to 0, 0 (the rest doesn't matter), delete the word "phalanx" from his abilities (and give "shield wall"). fs_s1_hoplite works really well with this combination.
This version of the mod is released to be 100% stable, and is not expected to interfere
with any other part of the game. So, as always, remember to describe what goes wrong,
if it does (even if I don't expect anything to).
Enjoy, and have fun!
Revision history:
0.8 Current version, conversion to 1.5/1.6, new skeletons
0.7 Updates to some skeletons
0.65 Resolved bugs with the Campaign map animations
0.6 Updated to work with Vercingetorix' XIDX
0.5 Original release
Credits:
The primary credit and thanks for my release go to CA, both because of the great game
they have created, and the wonderful base animations which formed an invaluable
foundation for this project. Literally, they did 90% here (and I did a LOT myself, so
that says how big their contribution was).
The second credit and thanks go to Vercingetorix, without whose wonderful programs
none of this would be possible. He literally made it possible, so treat him nicely
and send him cookies whenever you can.
The link: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=27015
Kralizec
11-25-2006, 20:42
Does this problem exist with normal spearmen, phalanx units or both?* I personally haven't noticed any issues with their battle performance. With phalanx units, the way the rear ranks hold their spears looks a little weird** (and not very plausible) but that's about it.
* If the issue is only with phalanx units, I don't expect it will matter because I assume that EB classical hoplites will be similar to hypapsistai, as they are the closest to classical hoplites in the current EB version. Hypapsistai (and Baktrion agema, wich are quite similar) don't use the phalanx ability of RTW.
** look at this picture (http://i29.imagethrust.com/i/80461/melee001.jpg), taken from this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=58491).
Thanks to the entire EB team for this superb mod, keep it going :2thumbsup:
Corinthian Hoplite
11-25-2006, 22:40
This is a GOOD classical hoplite animation:
Idle
https://img479.imageshack.us/img479/5453/idlefl7.th.png (https://img479.imageshack.us/my.php?image=idlefl7.png)
Marching
https://img238.imageshack.us/img238/6281/marchingof9.th.png (https://img238.imageshack.us/my.php?image=marchingof9.png)
Charging
https://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3908/chargingeq1.th.png (https://img62.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chargingeq1.png)
Fighting
https://img75.imageshack.us/img75/6422/fightinghx0.th.png (https://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fightinghx0.png)
It comes with SigniferOne's Animation Pack v0.8
scourgeofrome
11-25-2006, 23:13
This is one thing that I find a little weird and not sure you can fix.Its just weird when the male advisors for certain factions have a female voice (unless they are females in disguise).
Tellos Athenaios
11-26-2006, 10:59
I blame Victoria. ~;)
No seriously, that voice is Victoria's and EB hasn't yet (AFAIK) modded the files involved. If you don't want to hear her, then shut her up. :grin:
Corinthian Hoplite
11-28-2006, 22:08
Will peltasts actually use the pelt this time?
Tellos Athenaios
11-28-2006, 23:42
According to the unit description the name peltast is a bit misleading, since during EB's timeframe they didn't use any peltai anymore.
Corinthian Hoplite
11-28-2006, 23:58
Then perhaps they should be renamed?
-Praetor-
11-29-2006, 01:16
Perhaps they named it so, because peltast was the name of the light troops of the era. They originated in classical greece and thrace (5th century more or so). They had an evolution from their brithtime, from something more like the EB`s arkontistai, to a better protected and more versatile unit than a mere support and missile troop.
Peltastai comes from the moon-like shield they used in 5th century greece (pelte), but it`s equipment evolved to one that made able to the soldier to stand a chance if he comes into contact with the enemy, together with conserving the "light" caracter of the unit.
It`s a light and skirmisher unit that should be used not as infantry of the line, but as a fast missile support unit, that can be commited to fight if the situation demands it.
Teleklos Archelaou
11-29-2006, 04:44
Yep. Like he said. It's much more like that "cavalry" usage today in modern armies - it came from an important part of the equipment/unit, but as the unit evolved, and didn't use it anymore, it kept the name though.
It`s a light and skirmisher unit that should be used not as infantry of the line, but as a fast missile support unit, that can be commited to fight if the situation demands it.
I once had a line of peltasts hold against guesatae...
-Praetor-
11-29-2006, 05:58
I once had a line of peltasts hold against guesatae...
Hehehe, the rebel cities that have full stacks of peltastai have also whooped the arse of my consular armies... specially in hilly terrain...
But that doesn`t mean that that was their role in the ancient warfare.
Neither that they won`t get a stat adjustment also... but that`s for the team to decide.
Cheers!!!
Teleklos Archelaou
11-29-2006, 07:10
I'm not certain, but I thought there was going to be a stat adjustment for the peltasts. Something maybe about them having too much armor or something? I can't remember rightly, but I thought something like that was brought up.
Watchman
11-29-2006, 09:11
In one of those old discussions on the topic (you should be able to find it just by running a search on the word "peltast") someone pretty explicitly stated the Peltastai had two points too much armour. Personally, I took the appropriate steps (ie. went to the EDU and lowered the value to 8) which in any case seemed to stop the worst of the infamous Peltast Spam(tm) the AI so used to love...
They're still tough enough it doesn't really pay to direct arrows and javelins their way (slings, conversely, can take down even Camillian Triarii (at armour 15) at respectable rate from the unshielded side...), but at least they don't beat up Thureophoroi most of the time anymore.
Corinthian Hoplite
11-29-2006, 21:42
Peltastai comes from the moon-like shield they used in 5th century greece (pelte), but it`s equipment evolved to one that made able to the soldier to stand a chance if he comes into contact with the enemy, together with conserving the "light" caracter of the unit.
I would call them thureophoroi, as they carry thureos...
Olaf The Great
11-29-2006, 23:57
I would call them thureophoroi, as they carry thureos...
In EB they do not carry the Thureos, notice the shield is slightly smaller than the Thueophorois'
TA:I believe its related to the fact that they are much to similar to Theurophoroi.
Peltastai:20 Def (Heavy Peltasts)
Theurophoroi 21 (Mediun Infantry Javelin Inf)
Peltastai: 8(or more) Javelins.
Theurophoroi.4 Javelins
Charge:24 to 26/
Traits:Peltatai are faster, can hide in tall grass, and many other cool traits...
Since the defense, charge and attack are only SLIGHTLY in the Theurophoroi's favor...
Watchman
11-30-2006, 00:02
On the other hand, as has been pointed out before in these comparisions, the Thureos are rather better at not getting eaten alive by cavalry.
Then perhaps they should be renamed?
The name peltast has refered to various troop types over the centuries, and most of them didn't use the pelte. However, I guess that historically the Hellenic heavy skirmishers of the post-Alexandrian era were called peltasts. I am not entirely sure about this though, as I read somewhere that peltast also refered to the bodyguards of Hellenic potentates, but maybe I am confusing things.
However, following your logic the hastati should also be renamed because they don't use the hasta spear anymore.
Corinthian Hoplite
11-30-2006, 15:36
However, following your logic the hastati should also be renamed because they don't use the hasta spear anymore.
Yes they should, a name is supposed to represent something, when it no longer represents it, it has to be changed.
Yes they should, a name is supposed to represent something, when it no longer represents it, it has to be changed.
A name may well start out as a simple description of something, but over time it loses that meaning it gains a new one. Considering that word Peltastai was used to describe any manner of troops, not all of whom were using a particular shape of shield, and considering that the Romans themselves called their first line infantry hastati even when the hastati were not using spears, and given that language is evolving, ever evolving, your ground is not only shaky its damn right unstable. Give it up! The shape of the shield, and the type of the weapon, are no longer the defining features of the units in question. Yes they used different equipment once, but as technology increased, but their roles stayed the same, they have kept their same name.
Whats not to get?
Foot
Yes they should, a name is supposed to represent something, when it no longer represents it, it has to be changed.A name is a name. In some cases names are chosen for representation, in other cases it is simply an identifier. Where we have actual names we use them, representative or not.
No one has to do anything - I suggest you use fewer imperatives when posting in a thread titled "suggestions."
Corinthian Hoplite
11-30-2006, 18:50
A name is a name. In some cases names are chosen for representation, in other cases it is simply an identifier. Where we have actual names we use them, representative or not.
No one has to do anything - I suggest you use fewer imperatives when posting in a thread titled "suggestions."
I wasn't referring to the EB team at all, I'm just angry because people weren't (and aren't) able to give something a new name when the one they have no longer represents it.
You EB'rs have no fault, you're just following history, whether it's good or bad.
I'd be pretty disappointed if my 'Hastati' was renamed to 'Sword Guy'
Names that make no sense to the unit exist even in the modern military, Cavalry (They got no horses!) and marines (they aren't ship soldiers no more!) just to name a couple. I don't get why your so annoyed with this, its the way things have always been.
Watchman
12-01-2006, 06:44
For that matter, didn't the Romans keep the old Hastati/Principes/Triarii terms around even after switching to uniformly armed cohorts, save then for distinguising order of deployement...?
Just a simple little suggestion, the units you can train have their 'native' name, followed by an English name in brackets, but often the two are so long that it messes things up and makes things difficult to read.
Would it be possible to use abreviations here, say 'cav' instead of cavalry, 'skm' instead of skirmishers and such. It would clean things up just a little.
Zalmoxis
12-13-2006, 03:16
I have a bit of an off-topic request, I know it's strange but I didn't want to start a new thread. Can someone get me a picture of the Dacian banners (with the guy's face) from un modded RTW?
Has any thought been given to removing the 'phalanx' ability from non-phalangite spear units?
Teleklos Archelaou
12-15-2006, 16:14
Like which ones? You say "units" so I expect you are talking about more than the triarii, which won't have phalanx ability in the next patch anyway.
Kralizec
12-15-2006, 16:23
For that matter, didn't the Romans keep the old Hastati/Principes/Triarii terms around even after switching to uniformly armed cohorts, save then for distinguising order of deployement...?
I think they did. They arranged their cohorts according to experience and age (i.e. the most grizzled veterans here, the hardy younglings with less experience there)
Of course the older, more experienced soldiers would coincidentally fall under the principes and triarii classes
Alkiviadis
12-18-2006, 12:35
I read this in a forum,maybe is an idea for the EB to include:
Neutral/not included factions (small villages) offering help. This is the kind of script with TFT i said : 'wow man is this possible???!!!' Like a city going to war and the advisor pups op and says: "The city of blablabla offers you two hundred hoplites and joins your proposal to attack that city (city name). You must accept this offer and pay XXX denarii and then the script puts 200 hoplites in your army
Greetings. I’d like to thank all of EB team for making this mod. Brilliant job. Graphic is great, and so is the content. The battles now look how they should be. That’s the best mod I’ve seen so far, and even if you list it now as “beta”, it’s TheBeta =)
Lost any desire to play MTWII completely, hope you’ll mod it one day too. Anyway, the ancient history attracts me much more, and I’m very grateful to you, people =)
However, I have few suggestions, concerning gameplay only:
1.
Something has to be done about slingers. Either about their weapon range, either about their ammo amount, either about their rate of fire.
These little ugly cheap grunts make me feel good. They are my first group of city defenders and that’s why: I build hoards of them, six units of slingers per garrison. After some target practice they start to wipe out around 450 men, enemy’s general’s cavalry included. This means one thing only – once you have stone walls, your city’s safe forever. I play as Epeiros, and Romani are completely paralyzed in their efforts to capture my megapolis in southern Italy. They’re sending full stacks every turn, but that doesn’t help them much.
2.
I’m not sure, that limiting Epyrote elite phalanx number to 80 was a good idea. After all, everyone else with long pikes has 120 men in their unit. Since it’s a common rule for everybody in the game, why make an exemption for Epeiros? Looks a bit strange to me.
Well then, why don’t you limit their elite cavalry to the amount of 35 instead of 50? =)
3.
The one thing, that was right about RTRealism, was the amount of archers on the backs of armored elephants. May I also suggest to increase their quantity in the next patch? Did it for myself, adjusting files descr_mount.txt and export_descr_units.txt. Well, after adjustment they really are worth 3.500 per turn =)
Question:
Has anybody found something good in these strange Macedon men with axes? (“Agriani”/”Agrikonioni”, can’t recall their name, can be recruited by Epyrote and Macedonia) Since their axes are not armor piercing, are they good for anything? Epyrote & Macedonia do have some good flank infantry, that can be recruited in the same level MIC’s, what do they need these guys for?
And, please, forgive me my English, haven’t practiced it for years =)
Best regards,
MiniMe
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-18-2006, 18:24
Greetings. I’d like to thank all of EB team for making this mod. Brilliant job. Graphic is great, and so is the content. The battles now look how they should be. That’s the best mod I’ve seen so far, and even if you list it now as “beta”, it’s TheBeta =)
Lost any desire to play MTWII completely, hope you’ll mod it one day too. Anyway, the ancient history attracts me much more, and I’m very grateful to you, people =)Thanks. :smiley:
However, I have few suggestions, concerning gameplay only:
1.
Something has to be done about slingers. Either about their weapon range, either about their ammo amount, either about their rate of fire.
These little ugly cheap grunts make me feel good. They are my first group of city defenders and that’s why: I build hoards of them, six units of slingers per garrison. After some target practice they start to wipe out around 450 men, enemy’s general’s cavalry included. This means one thing only – once you have stone walls, your city’s safe forever. I play as Epeiros, and Romani are completely paralyzed in their efforts to capture my megapolis in southern Italy. They’re sending full stacks every turn, but that doesn’t help them much.Problem is: they were the most powerfull missile units in ancient times. Stack them up and they are devastating. In ancient times it was exactly like that. As an example:
The Battle of Eknomos 311 B.C.
In the year 311 B.C., The Greeks under the generalship of Agathocles of Syracuse, was at war with Hamilcar of Carthage. At Eknomos, Sicily, the battle at one point was going badly for the Carthaginans until Hamilcar brought forth 1000 Balearic slingers. Diodorus, the Sicilian-born historian writes:
Diodorus Siculus - Book XIX.109.
But when Hamilcar saw that his men were being overpowered and that the Greeks in constantly increasing number were making their way into the camp, he brought up his slingers, who came from the Baliaric Islands and numbered at least a thousand. By hurling a shower of great stones, they wounded many and even killed not a few of those who were attacking, and they shattered the defensive armour of most of them. For these men, who are accustomed to sling stones weighing a mina, contribute a great deal toward victory in battle, since from childhood they practise constantly with the sling. In this way they drove the Greeks from the camp and defeated them.
Their equipment for fighting consists of three slings, and of these they keep one around the head, another around the belly, and the third in the hands. In the business of war they hurl much larger stones than do any other slingers, and with such force that the missile seems to have been shot, as it were, from a catapult; consequently, in their assaults upon walled cities, they strike the defenders on the battlements and disable them, and in pitched battles they crush both shields and helmets and every kind of protective armour. And they are so accurate in their aim that in the majority of cases they never miss the target before them. The reason for this is the continual practice which they get from childhood, in that their mothers compel them, while still young boys, to use the sling continually; for there is set up before them as a target a piece of bread fastened to a stake, and the novice is not permitted to eat until he has hit the bread, whereupon he takes it from his mother with her permission and devours it.
2.
I’m not sure, that limiting Epyrote elite phalanx number to 80 was a good idea. After all, everyone else with long pikes has 120 men in their unit. Since it’s a common rule for everybody in the game, why make an exemption for Epeiros? Looks a bit strange to me. It was a mistake. Corrected.
Has anybody found something good in these strange Macedon men with axes? (“Agriani”/”Agrikonioni”, can’t recall their name, can be recruited by Epyrote and Macedonia) Since their axes are not armor piercing, are they good for anything? Epyrote & Macedonia do have some good flank infantry, that can be recruited in the same level MIC’s, what do they need these guys for? The axes are armour piercing.
Problem is: they were the most powerfull missile units in ancient times. Stack them up and they are devastating. In ancient times it was exactly like that.
I’m sorry, but there’s an even bigger problem: if they were the most powerful missile unit in ancient times, then why did these missile forces disappear, and Cretan archers outlived them? It was Cretan archers defending Constantinople at 1453, please correct me, if I’m wrong.
The axes are armour piercing.
Yesterday spent about two hours, testing these axe_men and illyrian armored spearmen against various units. Spearmen won the contest, they kill more, suffer less casualties. =)
scourgeofrome
12-20-2006, 03:04
Any chance of making units of triarii smaller.I'v been looking into roman tactics and army size and to make the most historical army as possible a smaller unit of triarri is needed (this might be off but what I've read has shown a maniple of triarri would be about 1/2 the size of the hastasti and principes).
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-20-2006, 03:28
I’m sorry, but there’s an even bigger problem: if they were the most powerful missile unit in ancient times, then why did these missile forces disappear, and Cretan archers outlived them? It was Cretan archers defending Constantinople at 1453, please correct me, if I’m wrong. Because the trainning time required to have competent slingers is quite a lot higher than to train a competent archer. Additionaly, it's harder to master, although when it is mastered it's deadly.
Yesterday spent about two hours, testing these axe_men and illyrian armored spearmen against various units. Spearmen won the contest, they kill more, suffer less casualties. =)Against what type of units have you used them?
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-20-2006, 03:30
Any chance of making units of triarii smaller.I'v been looking into roman tactics and army size and to make the most historical army as possible a smaller unit of triarri is needed (this might be off but what I've read has shown a maniple of triarri would be about 1/2 the size of the hastasti and principes).That is a very old discussion in EB. We're still at it...
scourgeofrome
12-20-2006, 03:35
That is a very old discussion in EB. We're still at it...
Oh,all right then.Its not that major of an issue,for me at least.I'm fine with slightly ahistorical armies.For people who do enjoy role playing,real historical armies,etc. would need smaller units in order to get the right size and still use the Roman manipular tactics.On that point,when testing this tactic I found my army already in manipular formation.Time saving feature.Thanks.:san_grin:
Against what type of units have you used them?
Heavy infantry, shock infantry, phalanx, peltastai, medium cavalry, light spearmen, ... romani, pontus, seleucid, KH, gauls...
(medium battle difficulty)
The only battle they've lost less men than armored_spearmen, was the battle against roman cavalry and that was really weird, I was expecting the opposite =)
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
12-20-2006, 09:35
Any chance of making units of triarii smaller.I'v been looking into roman tactics and army size and to make the most historical army as possible a smaller unit of triarri is needed (this might be off but what I've read has shown a maniple of triarri would be about 1/2 the size of the hastasti and principes).
Personally I prefer that triarii at their current size. I just us four groups of Hastati, four groups of Pricepes, and two group of Triarii. If they are halfed in size I won't have room for auxilia and mercs. And I would probably not even use them.
Is there anything in the game that models factions' abilities to purchase units like elephants from others? A script maybe using the advisor that can be called if you are not at war with a faction that has elephants available to it, which will give a proper cash boost to that faction, reduce yours, and have them spawn where appropriate? Or else just have them show up as randomly available recruitable mercs?
Edit:
3. When setting up a regime of type 3 and 4 (puppet state and allied state) governors should be spawned when the 'building' is constructed in that settlement with a special trait of the "local tyrant/monarch/governor" type that would make the guy useless in any other settlement but would give some small happiness and law bonuses or something similar.
Did this ever go anywhere?
Does the number of family members attained in any way limit breeding or other methods of acquiring new generals? I was thinking, what if for every city you had, it spawned a governor with the immovable trait, while, if it works, the regular family members would be the generals of your armies.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-20-2006, 15:22
Heavy infantry, shock infantry, phalanx, peltastai, medium cavalry, light spearmen, ... romani, pontus, seleucid, KH, gauls...
(medium battle difficulty)
The only battle they've lost less men than armored_spearmen, was the battle against roman cavalry and that was really weird, I was expecting the opposite =)What "armoured_spearmen" are you talking about?
What "armoured_spearmen" are you talking about?
illyrian infantry thorakitai
I was comparing Hellenistic Infantry Agrianaipelekephoroi (armor_piercing_axemen) and Illyrian Infantry Thorakitai (armoured_spearmen).
Spent about two hours, using them against different units (heavy infantry, shock infantry, phalanx, peltastai, medium cavalry, light spearmen,.. ) from different factions (romani, pontus, seleucid, KH, gauls...), medium battle difficulty.
The surprising result was that IFT kill more and suffer fewer casualties than HIA. HIA armor piercing factor is not working. There’s no sense in recruiting them, since Epeiros owns Illyrian Infantry Thorakitai unit and Macedon owns Greek Infantry Thorakitai :no:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-20-2006, 18:04
illyrian infantry thorakitai
I was comparing Hellenistic Infantry Agrianaipelekephoroi (armor_piercing_axemen) and Illyrian Infantry Thorakitai (armoured_spearmen).
Spent about two hours, using them against different units (heavy infantry, shock infantry, phalanx, peltastai, medium cavalry, light spearmen,.. ) from different factions (romani, pontus, seleucid, KH, gauls...), medium battle difficulty.
The surprising result was that IFT kill more and suffer fewer casualties than HIA. HIA armor piercing factor is not working. There’s no sense in recruiting them, since Epeiros owns Illyrian Infantry Thorakitai unit and Macedon owns Greek Infantry Thorakitai :no:You're comparing a veteran armoured mid to high-end unit (Thorakitai) with a regular unarmoured mid-end unit. What else did you expect? Although I have to say that their prices should be ajusted. Thorakitai is too cheap for it's roster position.
You're comparing a veteran armoured mid to high-end unit (Thorakitai) with a regular unarmoured mid-end unit. What else did you expect?
Army_barracks_I1 is required to recruit both of them, that's why I see no difference.
Although I have to say that their prices should be ajusted. Thorakitai is too cheap for it's roster position.
Or, perhaps Thorakitai amount should be decreased to 60 per unit. Money simply doesn't matter, if you have all those Balkan gold&silvermines =)
HI there. I'm a total realism player and dicided to test EB... let me say I am very pleased. I'd say your current build is better than RTR any version.
I have a few questions tough.
What's your sources on the romans?
Classic hoplites don't seem to work right as their main weapon is the sword...
Also, what kind of vitamines did you fed EB with?? It takes more of my computer than MTW2...
Great mod people really enjoyed it (espetially buildings traits and the Greek factions!).
Cheers...
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-20-2006, 21:12
Army_barracks_I1 is required to recruit both of them, that's why I see no difference.
Or, perhaps Thorakitai amount should be decreased to 60 per unit. Money simply doesn't matter, if you have all those Balkan gold&silvermines =)You'll think otherwise in a few days time... :sneaky:
You'll think otherwise in a few days time... :sneaky:
Sooooo... when is .81 coming out? While I'm insanely addicted to my SPQR game in .80, and not getting enough sleep, NO sleep would be even better... This mod is freakin' amazing.
Here are some thoughts after about 160 turns in my SPQR game:
1) I would love to see both a 'full campaign' and a post-Marian campaign game official option for all factions. I know someone was working on a late campaign mod, but it doesn't seem to have gone far.
2) I would also love to see an official 'short campaign' for factions.
3) Accensi slingers seem too effective for their low, low price. My understanding was the undertrained slingers aren't much more than an annoyance. It's too bad that disruption isn't modeled by the RTW tactical engine. It's easy to maneuver to the flanks of heavy infantry, but if they get caught out by calvalry... who cares?
4) Shouldn't Gaesatae have an armor of 0?
5) As a personal preference, I dislike seeing SOOOOO many traits with my generals. I would prefer that traits were somewhat less common, but tended to be greater in magnitude. This would make the more meaningful.
6) Would it be possible to use scripts to give the AI factions independent settlements at the beginning of the game to help kick start them a bit? The faction AI is really not that good at taking slave settlements, and helping them with a few of the most obvious choices could help quite a bit?
Oh -- would it be possible to calculate casualties in out of supply armies? I'd love to see casualties due to disease modeled that way. Maybe you could script plague-like effects somehow?
You'll think otherwise in a few days time...
Are you saying that BalkanSilverMines had run out? :inquisitive:
First of all:thanks for the greatest mod!
I've seen similar question there,but didn't find any answers:Should we expect something like "garrison script"(a script allowing AI to raise freeupkeep levy garrisons when besieged) in future EB builds?And is it possible that these garrisons will disappear after the siege is broken?I think it would make siege battles more difficult,and,of course,more "epic".
P.S.This thread should be named "suggestions for v0.8x",I think:)
First of all:thanks for the greatest mod!
I've seen similar question there,but didn't find any answers:Should we expect something like "garrison script"(a script allowing AI to raise freeupkeep levy garrisons when besieged) in future EB builds?And is it possible that these garrisons will disappear after the siege is broken?I think it would make siege battles more difficult,and,of course,more "epic".
P.S.This thread should be named "suggestions for v0.8x",I think:)
I don't really like that idea, because siege battles are no fun at all, that would make them even worse.
-Praetor-
12-21-2006, 06:24
I don't really like that idea, because siege battles are no fun at all, that would make them even worse.
We all face full stack garrisons on each rebel city that we conquer...
It won`t be very different with those anyways... :grin:
On the other hand, it will prevent you from sucker-punching unguarded factions... :rolleyes:
But to implement this idea would be complicated. :uhoh2:
What if the town already has a full stack garrison? Will the scripted garrison spring outside the town?
What if the city has mayor unrest problems, or has been only recently conquered by the defender... will the people be so eager as to defend their faction`s masters?
Would the number of defenders be substracted from the population numbers?
:shrug:
Cheers!!!
Well,I think the team has already implemented a lot more complicated features for the game(but this is not the point,of course).But my idea is to try to represent large battles for cities(may be for large/capital cities only,may be not for all factions),where we could use all possible siegecraft and maneuvers to win,rather than playing a siegebattle for large city with stone walls and using 1 siege tower and then beating 2 weakened units that gathered to defend their great megapolis:).
Well,I think the team has already implemented a lot more complicated features for the game(but this is not the point,of course).But my idea is to try to represent large battles for cities(may be for large/capital cities only,may be not for all factions),where we could use all possible siegecraft and maneuvers to win,rather than playing a siegebattle for large city with stone walls and using 1 siege tower and then beating 2 weakened units that gathered to defend their great megapolis:).
A while ago, this matter was discussed on TWC, and the EB team indeed confirmed that something approaching a "garrison script" would be implemented, especially for "homeland" cities. It seems that this kind of script was originally created by the EB team, although it has not been implemented yet in EB but in other MODs (SPQR... but note that SPQR's creator has been part of the EB team). More recently TA stated, when 0.8 was released, that the next major update would include interesting sripted events. I guess this is what it is about, at least partially... (?)
Punic citizen militia taking the arms, or the equivalent elsewhere, when Carthage is besieged, would be great and even, IMO, needed for realism sake. There needs to be a difference between sieging any Carthaginian/Roman conquered city on the one hand, and the very heartland of the empire on the other hand. Capturing easily undefended enemy capitals is just so anti-climatic in RTW...
What if the city has mayor unrest problems, or has been only recently conquered by the defender... will the people be so eager as to defend their faction`s masters?
:shrug:
Cheers!!!
You could key the number of defenders off of the happiness of the population AND the total population?
Good to hear it,Numahr.:)
The idea with homelands would be good and maybe enough for me.Also,it would be good if it worked with the faction's last settlement(or 2-3 settlements).And, of course, those rebels don't really need such a script:)They a quite strong already.
Btw,if you set 2turns recruitment for "triarii",you possibly won't see romani armies,with tons of them:)
(that's what I saw with my Carthage campaign)
Shifty_GMH
12-21-2006, 16:35
P.S.This thread should be named "suggestions for v0.8x",I think:)
I agree considering v0.8 is already out.
Currently playing as SPQR and around year 260 bc. V0.8 is my first go-around with EB. Is it possible to have numbered/named legions with eagle standards in EB? If not, I would make that suggestion. If there are forgive me. I haven't had a lot of time to play between work and being the holiday season. Also, heard v0.8 saved games aren't compatible with v0.81 and don't want to get to far in my 0.8 game and have to redo everything for 0.81. Speaking of v0.81 patch.....does anyone know of an eta for it??
blacksnail
12-21-2006, 19:45
I agree considering v0.8 is already out.
Currently playing as SPQR and around year 260 bc. V0.8 is my first go-around with EB. Is it possible to have numbered/named legions with eagle standards in EB? If not, I would make that suggestion. If there are forgive me. I haven't had a lot of time to play between work and being the holiday season. Also, heard v0.8 saved games aren't compatible with v0.81 and don't want to get to far in my 0.8 game and have to redo everything for 0.81. Speaking of v0.81 patch.....does anyone know of an eta for it??
Hiya. Welcome to EB. ~:)
1) Numbered/named legions aren't possible due to various restrictions behind the scenes. None of the options we looked at were feasible/worked the way we wanted, but that might make a great EB mod for those who want to focus on it.
2) Saved games will not be compatible between 0.8 and 0.81
3) Nothing official yet. We are currently testing it, so hopefully sooner than later. To forestall anybody else's question about "when is sooner," my answer is "when it's ready."
Maybe a stupid question but why doesn´t Makedonia have Thorakitai in the unit roster? Or were the Hysteroi Pezhetairoi the only adaption to roman warfare?
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-22-2006, 01:16
Maybe a stupid question but why doesn´t Makedonia have Thorakitai in the unit roster? Or were the Hysteroi Pezhetairoi the only adaption to roman warfare?In case you don't know, the Thureophoroi/Thorakitai/Thorakitai Argyraspidai are units that were create quite a while before Rome started warring the Sucessor states. That is a common misconception. They are evolutions of the heavy peltast. They are known as "adaptations to romans" or "imitation legionaires" because the Roman chroniclers were the ones that made the reports we read today and they used the best comparative terms they could find - read "They throw javelins, are armed with a large shield and armoured in mail, so they are their type of our legionaires..."
Shifty_GMH
12-22-2006, 21:08
Hiya. Welcome to EB. ~:)
1) Numbered/named legions aren't possible due to various restrictions behind the scenes. None of the options we looked at were feasible/worked the way we wanted, but that might make a great EB mod for those who want to focus on it.
2) Saved games will not be compatible between 0.8 and 0.81
3) Nothing official yet. We are currently testing it, so hopefully sooner than later. To forestall anybody else's question about "when is sooner," my answer is "when it's ready."
Good to know. Thanks for the response.
-What's your sources on the romans?
-Classic hoplites don't seem to work right as their main weapon is the sword...
-Also, what kind of vitamines did you fed EB with?? It takes more of my computer than MTW2...
1) Have a look in these threads
-EB Bibliography (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70698)
-SPQR preview (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=53849)
2) Will be fixed in the next patch.
3) Don't know about the vitamins.
Mind if I give a sugestion?? The armored hoplites have only +1 on attack and defense... they are not worth it for the price (yes even with greater morale) I gave them an extra +2 one in armor and one in defense skill. This doesn't unbalance the game and now, they're definatly worth their keep.
Also the Spartans are too weak. With only two more defense than the elite spearmen (and as someone mentioned, the shield incoherence) and 20 less men, they just don't cut it...
Cheers...
I have a Suggestion. :)
Would it be possible to prevent factions from totaly disappear and never return again, by hiding a settlement of their in, maybe, the corner of the map?
Lets say im playing as Rome and completly destroy Casse, wouldnt it be reasonable for them to reappear if i leave their land, or if the public order is low and towns start to repel?
What im basicly is trying to say is, by not making it possible for factions to "totaly disappear", there always the chance of them coming back and tryning to reconquer their lost land. (which would make sense, wouldnt it?) You could do this by hiding a settlement of every faction somewhere on the map.
This, ofc, require settlement slots, and i guess you have ran out. But maybe it is something you want to consider. :)
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
12-28-2006, 03:23
Is it possible for traits to be linked to the number of command/management/influence? So that there could be a trait that changed the name of a given character based on his visible stats? My idea is something along the lines of if a character has 20 points (in any three stats) he gets the trait and title Magnus (greek: Megas) so you could make yourself a Alexander, Antiochus, or Pompey.
Merc Cretan archers missile range - 176
Cretan archers missile range - 153
I can see that was done on purpose, I just don’t see, why =)
QwertyMIDX
12-29-2006, 07:35
I'll make sure TK looks into it and that it gets fixed. Thanks.
Tellos Athenaios
12-29-2006, 18:39
I have a Suggestion. :)
Would it be possible to prevent factions from totaly disappear and never return again, by hiding a settlement of their in, maybe, the corner of the map?
Lets say im playing as Rome and completly destroy Casse, wouldnt it be reasonable for them to reappear if i leave their land, or if the public order is low and towns start to repel?
What im basicly is trying to say is, by not making it possible for factions to "totaly disappear", there always the chance of them coming back and tryning to reconquer their lost land. (which would make sense, wouldnt it?) You could do this by hiding a settlement of every faction somewhere on the map.
This, ofc, require settlement slots, and i guess you have ran out. But maybe it is something you want to consider. :)
But how's it going to work out with Victory Conditions such as Destroy or Outlive Faction x?
blacksnail
12-29-2006, 18:51
But how's it going to work out with Victory Conditions such as Destroy or Outlive Faction x?
Indeed. Lovejoy, it's an interesing suggestion but just isn't possible due to the way the RTW engine works.
Hello
Just a quick suggestion. I don't know how familiar you are with RTR's Naval and Metropolis mod but the one thing I am not crazy about for EB is the very large growth rates.
I find that by the time I have built a new governors building and one other building its up a level again. I'd suggest slowing down growth a bit because as the Casse I took the scotish town after about 10 years to find about 10,000 people there.
But I suppose its the only thing I can complain about so no biggy.
blacksnail
01-03-2007, 06:29
One of the (many!) big projects for the next major release is a more realistic growth rate. You're right olly, all of Italy should not have Imperial Palaces by 240 BC.
May be this is useless,but have you ever thought of a small EB_Prologue campaign?It would be great for some people to learn all the differences and features of EB just in their game(getting advices like in vanilla prologue).
P.C. 1,000 posts here:)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.