Suggestions for v0.8 [Archive]

Slider6977

03-20-2006, 17:15

I wanted to know whether or not it would be possible to have regular armies (ie without a Family Member) build forts and watchtowers. Is this at all moddable or is it a hardcoded feature. I just find it unrealistic that an amry could not be able to build battlements without a "general". Not to mention I always like to see every inch of my provinces, so I always build watchtowers. And having to march around a family member instead of having him concentrate on being a Governor or fighting in battles is really annoying.

Sometimes is works out, as you can build towers on your way to conquer other provinces, but usually this is not the case. I don't like playing with FOW off, so I wanted to know if this is at all possible. I don't mind the fact that you must have a Family member to hire mercenaries, but it seems unrealstic to not be able to build a fort when you have a full stack army that just happens to not have a general.

Teufel

03-20-2006, 17:20

Foot

03-20-2006, 19:04

On that note, is it possible also for captains to receive the same penalties and bonuses as generals do while on campaign? Because it seems strange that an army led by a captain shouldn't receive moral penalties from rationing, etc.

That is, unfortunately, impossible as all the penalties and bonuses are got through traits and captains cannot be given traits.

Foot

khelvan

03-20-2006, 20:00

All of the above are tied in the system to named characters, and we cannot fool the system into thinking that a captain is a named character, sorry.

redplague

03-20-2006, 22:15

Is it possible to tune down the upkeep the parthian horsemen a bit? Their upkeep cost in the current version is so high that I can only afford foot soldiers, which is ahistorical, or maybe it's simply because I suck at playing parthia.:embarassed: Though it could make much sense for the parthians to have much lower calvary upkeep than say, the romans.:skull:

oudysseos

03-20-2006, 23:51

Question/Suggestion re population growth-
Would it be possible to add the ability to move population around between settlements- like sending colonists? Greek cities in the classical age often eased overpopulation in this way.
Another point is that if you take slaves when you conquer a settlement, wherever they end up they'll be foreigners/minorities. A large population of minorities in a city would probably tend to increase unrest. Is it possible to represent ethnic and class related problems in city management- maybe the more your empire grows outside of your homeland territories the higher percentage of foreigners you have in your big cities and the more open they are to unrest/revolt.

oudysseos

03-21-2006, 00:11

I'd also be interested to see more impact on civilians from miltary reforms and campaign development. As Athens built the Periclean navy of 200 triremes, the old-school aristocratic hoplites lost influence to the lower class 'thetes' who provided the bulk of the oarsmen for the navy. This had serious impact on the balance of power in Athenian politics. Or the Marian reforms of allowing the 'head count' to serve in the army had long-reaching consequences. A major factor in some of the civil wars (Sulla v Marius, Casear v Pompey) was the need of a general to provide land for his troops after they mustered out, and to do that he needed to stay in power.
I know that a lot of this stuff is unfortunatley beyond the scope of RTW, but I do think that some the impacts of military reform could be put in: if you build a large navy, for instance, unrest should increase because of the agitation of lower-class rowers for more political power. If, after the Marian reforms, you disband some of your legions then they'll want land- maybe this could lead to a spawn of rebels in your home territories. If you don't disband them then their morale shoud go down.

oudysseos

03-21-2006, 00:45

Something I think the campaign map really needs is some regional/national labels. The city names are shown but I'd like to see province names, rivers, even geographical features like Mount Olympus, Thermopylae and the various (strategically very important) mountain passes named (like the Cilician Gates). Definitely rivers- it would really help place yourself in the period. If it doesn't appeal to everyone maybe you could make it optional like the city/character names. I think it would also be fun to have historically important cities named on the map even if they can't be included as playable settlements because of the game limits- they could just be part of the scenery, so to speak.

Trithemius

03-21-2006, 00:57

I know that a lot of this stuff is unfortunatley beyond the scope of RTW, but I do think that some the impacts of military reform could be put in: if you build a large navy, for instance, unrest should increase because of the agitation of lower-class rowers for more political power. If, after the Marian reforms, you disband some of your legions then they'll want land- maybe this could lead to a spawn of rebels in your home territories. If you don't disband them then their morale shoud go down.

It'd be quite neat to see a structure that mirrors the "other side" of the current colonies. The existing colonies are built in large settlements and represent people being sent away, but perhaps the Romans (and others who might develop similar ideas - perhaps Epeirotes and Makedonians?) can also build a structure in type ii and iii areas that represents demobilised veterans establishing themselves there? Perhaps with some public order bonuses, or xp and/or morale bonuses to locally recruited troops (veterans might serve as a cadre, or just instill esprit de corps in descendents)?

Cheexsta

03-21-2006, 02:12

Scripts often need to use the visible variant of a town's name - so I'm wondering if this would change or negatively affect anything we would do with scripts?
Are you sure? Looking over EBBS, it looks like they only seem to use the internal names of the cities, which stay the same when you simply change the name of a city.

At least, that's what I assume. You guys are the ones who made the script, so I may be wrong. I hope not, though ~D

Edit: as an aside, I believe a similar suggestion has been made to the RTR boys for 7.0, regarding a script to tell the player about the settlement names. Just clarifying before people start crying foul ~;)

econ21

03-21-2006, 03:11

If v0.8 ports over to 1.5, then that would be enough to justify a patch on its own.:2thumbsup: I think the AI would improve a fair amount and I can't wait to adjust the rebel spawn rate right down. :wall:

20 more units would be icing on the cake.

However, if forced to recommend suggestions, there are two cosmetic changes I'd like to see. Firstly, switch the Roman general portraits and speeches back to Roman from Greek - I think Qwerty said this was intended for 1.5 anyway. Secondly, replace the peasant "placeholder" unit card graphics. You have nice pictures for each unit on the unit details, so hopefully minaturising them or something related can be done.

GMT

03-21-2006, 08:27

Would it be possible to limit population growth and squalor, maybe you can create a building that has massive population growth penalties/squalor bonus once a city gets above the 24k level?

Also the distance to the capitol penalty still seems pretty excessive, I'm playing a Seleukid campaign right now and it's really a pain, like 80% in some cities!

GMT :bow:

Quintus Curiatius Trigeminus

03-21-2006, 09:01

Add the centurio and the signifer to the hastati
Add the centurio to the principes
Change the name of Cnaeus Scipio Asina to Cnaeus Cornelius Scipio.
Is the problem with roman children resolved? The son of Cornelius Scipio will be a Cornelius Scipio or will he be a "something else" Scipio?
Please forgive me my English
pozdrawiam

PseRamesses

03-21-2006, 12:59

1. Regarding formations vanilla had a neat feat that has long been gone and I´ve missed it since. Selecting several diverse units in an specific order then press single line the units forms into a single line in the exact order that they where selected in. As now the AI seem to "group" them together.
Ex. If I want to create a sinle line like this: Triarii, Principie, tirarii the line will probably look like TTP or PTT but with vanilla and I choosed the units like this: TPT they would form up in a line as TPT.

2. A hold formation command should always mean hold formation. As it is now when a unit gets engaged from the side it will start rotating towards the agressor. This is specially annoying when you have a line of spears/ phalanxes and an enemy unit marches up towards unit A but just before engaging unit A it turns and engaging unit B. Unit B now will rotate towards the enemy thus exposing its flank. A line formation put on hold formation command should be static.

3. Same thing with the phalanx formation plus that they break up into an obscure mass of individual soldiers. Breaking a phalanx´ formation is only about mass. A single phalanx unit will hold formation against another unit but faced with several units pushing towards it it should succumb.
Is it just me or does anyone else agree that a cavalry charge head on into a phalanx unit should not be able to break it?! As for now the cavalries easily penetrates a phalanx or spear unit and a head on charge will only cause minor casualities to the cavalry unit - it´s just ridiculous!

nikolai1962

03-21-2006, 13:06

I've been playing a lot of vanilla 1.5 as part of testing the EB buildings for the port. I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to tinker with the formations in the 1.5 version as the patched vanilla battle ai, formations and *especially* army composition is much improved. Or it might all be due to the much better army composition. Hard to say.

Either way some of the stuff people have done to mod the formations files will be based on work-arounds for the weaknesses of the earlier vanilla game which might not work the same way with better ai armies.

(Plus the EB formations work very well imo.)

Geoffrey S

03-21-2006, 13:52

It'd be quite neat to see a structure that mirrors the "other side" of the current colonies. The existing colonies are built in large settlements and represent people being sent away, but perhaps the Romans (and others who might develop similar ideas - perhaps Epeirotes and Makedonians?) can also build a structure in type ii and iii areas that represents demobilised veterans establishing themselves there? Perhaps with some public order bonuses, or xp and/or morale bonuses to locally recruited troops (veterans might serve as a cadre, or just instill esprit de corps in descendents)?
This, I like. Some kind of building representing the movement of veterans into colonies, thereby raising growth but adding more experience/better units to the settlement could be good.

Teutobod II

03-21-2006, 14:56

I got a translation for the Sweboz granery :

*skammjō_, *skammjō n? meaning storehouse as a single building

according to this dictionary
http://www.koeblergerhard.de/germwbhinw.html

Ludens

03-21-2006, 15:37

Also, I know that you guys make your own formations files, but would it be possible to look into using a (modded, obviously) version of Darth's latest formations? I haven't actually checked them out yet, but they seem like a vast improvement over previous versions...
To be honest, I am not sure that the EB team has actually done much with the formations. I might be mistaken (it is so much time ago I used them), but I recall Darth Formations 8.5 working far better.

1. Regarding formations vanilla had a neat feat that has long been gone and I´ve missed it since. Selecting several diverse units in an specific order then press single line the units forms into a single line in the exact order that they where selected in. As now the AI seem to "group" them together.
Darth Formations used this as well, so I assume there is some reason for this. However, it still is a bloody nuissance, and I seriously consider putting vanilla formation files back.

john289

03-21-2006, 17:00

oudysseos

03-21-2006, 17:51

Grain Supplies:

I'd like to see some kind of scripting that makes control of a major grain producing region a prereq or trigger for advanced growth and/or high income.
What I mean is The Athenian Empire of the 5th century BCE was predicated on control of trade with the Black Sea and its grain supplies, and Roman expansion came to rely on controlling Egypt and Sicily as major grain producing regions. Without steady supplies of grain neither Rome nor Athens could have grown to anything like the size they did. Could there be a limit to city expansion based on the availability of food supplies? Technology developement follows on: it takes a big city to build advanced MIC and train advanced troops. Without control of the necessary resources it can't be done.

Teleklos Archelaou

03-21-2006, 18:03

Well, this is the biggest pet peeve about EB of mine and it's not even really a big one, but, it just pisses me off how Hayasdan expands over the steppe/Russia like crazy, and the Sarmations just get rolled over every single time. I'm not sure what could be done about this, but I do understand that Eb's script adds money to a faction once they're under a certain mark in the treasury. Maybe add more money to the Sarmations so there's a bit more fight in them?
There will be big changes in the way the sarmatians' buildings evolve in a later build. But I think something else needs to be done to help them more in regards to their starting economic situation. When I test them currently I totally disband every last unit I have, then sit and build for about 7 years with taxes on low in every town and sending diplomats to get trade status with all factions I can, and then I finally can get the towns to 2000 people and upgrade and start building ports and markets. The AI doesn't have a chance under those conditions compared to armenians. We won't fix this quickly, but it will get better - you can be sure of that. Plus Pontos will pose more of a threat to armenians in the future too and keep them bottled up a little better when more pontos units come into thegame.

Foot

03-21-2006, 18:10

There will be big changes in the way the sarmatians' buildings evolve in a later build. But I think something else needs to be done to help them more in regards to their starting economic situation. When I test them currently I totally disband every last unit I have, then sit and build for about 7 years with taxes on low in every town and sending diplomats to get trade status with all factions I can, and then I finally can get the towns to 2000 people and upgrade and start building ports and markets. The AI doesn't have a chance under those conditions compared to armenians. We won't fix this quickly, but it will get better - you can be sure of that. Plus Pontos will pose more of a threat to armenians in the future too and keep them bottled up a little better when more pontos units come into thegame.

Noooooooo, not my precious Armenia! :grin: I must say though, it would be nice if Armenia was more concerned with Sophene and Lesser Armenia, its original lands, and less concerned with the lands above the Caucaucas (how do you stop spelling that) Mountains. Ah well, we can but wish. Though I have noted in one game I played that Armenia actually took on pontos as was doing quite well, they had driven Pontos out of Sinope and made it all the way to Nikomedia.

Foot

Teleklos Archelaou

03-21-2006, 18:25

Well, the sarmatians will have trouble recruiting outside the steppe, and even though we will let them have a type4 govt, they can't just keep putting type4's everwhere. I don't want to see them expand outside the steppe areas too much, but being dominant inside their part of it would be nice. Armenia just pushing them around so easily almost every time isn't that believable.

the_handsome_viking

03-21-2006, 18:33

I think there should be a unit with magical powers.

I also think that some Celtic factions should have female generals, preferably good looking ones.

I think there should be at least one dinosaur unit.

I think there should be more naked men units.

I think the Belgae should be in it just because the Romans were a bit warey when fighting them.

The Galatians would also be a cool faction.

There should be a faction of pirates.

There should also be sea monsters.

Magister Militum

03-21-2006, 18:54

what about dynamic reforms?

Christianus

03-21-2006, 21:15

Hi!

Anybody here know about the metropolis modification for RTR? Among other things it is a great way to show whitch cities were important, and whitch ones who weren`t. Maybe elements of something like this could be included in EB?

Comments on this?

Quintus Curiatius Trigeminus

03-21-2006, 22:20

And again the son of Cornelius Scipio is "Fulcinius" Scipio. What do you know about the gens Fulcinia? I know something. The mother of Gaius Marius was called Fulcinia :laugh4:
There something called "Roman cognomen mod" for RTR. There the son of Marcus Valerius Laevinus is for example Marcus Valerius Laevinus.
Please explain it to me because I don't uderstant it. Why it is possible for the RTR team to do a correct roman name system and for the EB team it is impossible?

Teleklos Archelaou

03-21-2006, 22:39

If RTR was able to make a correct roman name system (to your taste) while EB hasn't, why does it take a mod (the Roman cognomen mod) to fix it?

Cheexsta

03-22-2006, 04:34

Probably because he doesn't realise that the Roman Cognomen mod wasn't made by the RTR team ~;p I haven't tried the mod yet, though, so I can't say how good it is...

And hell, I'm not sure if I'd like to play a game with full Roman names. Publius Cornelius Scipio Publi filius Publi nepos Aemilianus Africanus Minor Numantinus, anyone?

Edit: gawd, these smiley codes are not only obscure, but they're case sensitive...gah...

Edit 2: I just *had* to forget "Scipio" didn't I? ~:doh:

Quintus Curiatius Trigeminus

03-22-2006, 08:19

The problem is not in "full roman names"
The problem is that in EB the son of Publius Cornelius Scipio is called Lucius Fulcinius Scipio

khelvan

03-22-2006, 10:01

Please enlighten this ignorant person as to why that is a problem, and what exactly you want to see different.

Quintus Curiatius Trigeminus

03-22-2006, 10:25

Thank You very much Khelvan.
I fixed it by myself
Good bye

Cheexsta

03-22-2006, 13:32

I think the main problem with the names is not with EB, but more with RTW's system itself. For example, Scipio Aemilianus' (adopted) father was Publius Cornelius Scipio. If RTW was to choose the name of Scipio Snr's son, it would have probably been, as Quintus said above, something along the lines of Lucius Fulcilius Scipio - ie using "Scipio" as a last name, which I don't think it was used as in history. Or, as another example, Publius Scipio Africanus (Scipio Aemilianus' adopted grandfather) would start off as Publius Scipio, but would lose the "Scipio" as soon as he conquered Africa in EB, becoming Publius Africanus.

Damn, Roman names are hard to explain. Especially when I'm only just learning about them now...

In any case, I don't think it's overly moddable/practical to make "proper" Roman names. Can you imagine how many Publius Scipios or Porcius Catos we would see running around? Not to mention the fact that only the "last" name gets carried over to the son in RTW.

Just leave it as it is, IMHO.

GodEmperorLeto

03-23-2006, 05:16

I got a brainstorm today. I was thinking about Diplomats and how I usually end up building one for each important faction and sending them off to their capital to basically act as an embassador.

Would it be possible to add an ability to diplomats where they can enter a city (like a spy almost), be privy to some of the city's secrets, but also be able to talk with that faction? Almost like setting up an embassy or consulate in the city, but if war broke out, they'd be expelled and unable to re-enter unless peace was arranged.

I was considering this especially since spying is really difficult in the new version (I almost never get anything higher than 50% on my chances to spy).

Jarardo

03-24-2006, 02:15

1.Yes I like the female celtic leaders. And oh boy, do they like me. But seriously, that would be good. And yes, no ugly, MTW style inbred princesses please. Or would those be realistic? I hope not. Man those MTW chicks were horrid.

2.I dont know if you guys plan on making a kretian archer unit? From reading the toxoi description as Makedon I figured there would be one. But sadly, there isn't, so I ended up slaughtering all the kydonians for vengeance, I call still hear there pathetic pleas for mercy.

3. Pron.

4.The AI seems to have a hard time taking over rebel cities. I can appreciate the challenge for a human player, but I would rather fight against larger factions. I've watched the Gelai(sp?) besiege Sardika(??-the city north of pella)-for maybe 5-7 turns with between 1-3 stacks in the area, they reduced the number of rebels in the city but eventually gave up. So I slaughtered all of them too.

Okay 5. will night battles be able to be implemented with 1.5?

6. Faction called "Oblivion only comes on DVD's" that I can slaughter while it begs for mercy.

Okay 7. A "Laugh at my own wit" button.

khelvan

03-24-2006, 04:05

As far as I know, we can't do a mix of male and female leaders; we would have to choose one or the other. It really doesn't make practical sense to have female leaders, due to the various system limitations. It would be a complete overhaul to switch a faction over to female leaders.

Certainly, given the information Ranika has posted here before now about female leaders, I don't think they will be in our plans.

A Cretan archer unit is planned, but please don't stop slaughtering them on our account.

Jarardo

03-24-2006, 05:44

Have you guys considered changing the start date? I know its a realism mod, so you dont want to make the roman reforms happen before they did historically, but it seems to leave out a huge part of the game. I know I havent paid close attention to the dates of all my campaigns in RTW, but I really doubt even with Vanilla years I've ever gotten to 107bc. Its six hundred some turns isnt it? Does anyone ever get there?

It just seems like a huge part of the game thats missing, I would say even more so for people who really like to play Rome. I normally just want to fight against the roman units.

Otherwise, look at the baloons! :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:

Teleklos Archelaou

03-24-2006, 05:53

We do love balloons, but trust me, there is one thing that cannot change whatsoever for this mod, and it's the start date. Diplomacy has been painstakingly researched for 272, faction start positions, family names, family positions, family ages, scripted events. Those things would take quite a while to try and move - and huge discussions over any manner of stuff related to them would be thrown out the window if a different date was selected. Also - the reforms will not be dependent on any years - they are going to be dependent upon what you do as a faction, so they could come a lot earlier possibly.

LorDBulA

03-24-2006, 10:24

Also - the reforms will not be dependent on any years
Well there will be minimal requirement for date, for example Polybian reforms can happen from 240BC.

cunctator

03-24-2006, 10:36

Remember that some of the new units represent also a kind of technical progress, that can't be infinetly accelerated. Also if you want to fight against marian or even imperial units the AI romans have to become a major power by themselve, before they get them.

Epistolary Richard is preparing a late period mod submod for EB that will start in 107 BC with marian romans.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=51956

SirPoot

03-24-2006, 12:03

Bartix!

Jarardo

03-29-2006, 21:45

YES BARTIX

:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

...:wall:

jedispongee

04-03-2006, 19:47

I have a gripe.

Can you change the depths for formations? Playing on huge, with the units usually at a depth of 4 soldiers and say, a frontage with 40 soldiers makes battles a bit unwieldy. It'll also make the phalanxes more deeper and harder to penetrate.

I'm not sure if it's by design or not, and if the formations were made on a different unit size (large, etc), but it's been something that has been bothering me. I've tried adjusting it meticuously, but I've been suffering crashes when doing so.

All in all, if it's by design then never mind me and forget about it as I don't want the formations to be adjusted just for me, so hopefully others feel the same way.

tk-421

04-04-2006, 00:21

shifty157's yurts.

nikolai1962

04-05-2006, 04:40

Dooz

04-06-2006, 01:03

Probably a lot of work but maybe have two sets of rebels. Basic pre-placed set of rebel armies and a second script-placed set depending on the player faction. Personally i quite like the slower expansion overall but some AI factions might have too much trouble with them. Only worth thinking about if there are some factions that only rarely get off the ground at all.

That will almost surely be fixed with the port to 1.5 as the save-load bug is resolved. Then the rebels will serve their intended purpose well I assume. Most of the non-expansion of the AI is due to that error currently.

Obelics

04-07-2006, 09:56

Hallo! Id like to see captain and Generals with custom skins in 0.8 update. Is this going to be made? Thanks!
Anyway, whyle some vanilla general are really ugly (for example i dont like, but it is just my opinion, the greek vanilla skins for general), There are some nice vanilla skins, i like for example the Eastern General skin, so id like, if this skin is to be changed, to do not change it a lot.

Anyway great work never enough appreciated!
Sorry if the matter of the cap/Gen skins could have already been discussed

Greetz Obelics/Artaserse

QwertyMIDX

04-07-2006, 23:33

We'll redo them all eventually, at the moment celtic lesser generals are already in game and family generals should be in shortly.

Mithradates

04-08-2006, 09:48

Kepper

04-08-2006, 11:40

In version 0.8 they could reduce the time of construction for the edificios. Some take a very long time to be concluidos, what it compels the player to losing many turns the wait of determined edificios to be able to give you sweat them beneficios. Former: the mines of second nivel take 29 turns them to be concluidas or either more than 4 years the wait to have effect in the economy of factions, sory for my English

Tanit

04-08-2006, 17:13

I have an important query about rebels. I think that the rebel generating system needs to be edited. I am not just speeking of the frustrating number of rebels, but also of the rebel's advancement and ethnicity. I find it odd when spanish rebels turn up in sicily and africa, and when velites turn up as rebels in Italy right at the start of the game. I was also wondering if the opening videos for the factions would be fixed, given to the right factions, or even possibly redone. Thanks.

Ludens

04-09-2006, 12:28

This is my first post, i have been followig EB for almost a year but have only recently joined the forum i would like to say thanks for the great mod, however a suggestion for the next patch would be that when archers are on the walls of your greatest citadels why do they run out of ammunition! surely they would have a near infinate supply! oh well its a small point but in the end its the small things that count.
That is impossible, I am afraid. Archer units carry the same number of arrows in every condition. It is possible to give them unlimited arrows, but then they will have unlimited arrows when fighting in the middle of nowhere as well when defending a citadel.

BTW, welcome to the Org ~:wave: .

GeneticFlea

04-10-2006, 04:24

Hey guys, i love everything so far, but if i could have one little addition it would be to have something done with the distance to capitol unrest...i just feel that in the historical roman empire, living in alexandra wouldnt give you more unrest than living in say, athens, or north gaul. Maybe have certain gov'ts give different effects to distance to capitol, like maybe homeland provinces negate it because they are a part of that culture and maybe allied provinces (3 and 4 or just 4) also arnt affected because they are allied and so theyre not concerned with the capitol. I just feel like the current system has you moving your capitol to the center of your empire to get rid of this unrest penalty when in reality Rome would have never moved its capitol(or makedonia, or ptolemy, or anyone) just so it would be in the center of its empire. These cities were the cultural center of their empire, and they would have balked at moving it. this should be reflected in game.

QwertyMIDX

04-10-2006, 07:05

The whole thing is hardcoded, the only thing we could do is give more happiness/law/loyalty bonuses, which we already have a ton of.

Mithradates

04-10-2006, 12:22

Any chance of a greek hoplite for every greek city?

Teufel

04-10-2006, 15:50

Any chance of some Illyrian locals being available to factions other than Epeirus?

soibean

04-10-2006, 20:10

I can see Illyrian locals being used by Dacia or other barbarian factions... or maybe for their skirmishers... but did would "civilized" factions such as the Greek city states, Macedon, Rome, etc, really use such untrained units in their armies?
but what do I know Im just throwing this out there
I would like to see hoplites in all greek states like mithradates said though

khelvan

04-11-2006, 02:08

Any chance of a greek hoplite for every greek city?Not a chance. We don't have the unit or texture space for this.

Mithradates

04-11-2006, 12:09

awhhhhh

Geoffrey S

04-11-2006, 13:37

Mithradates, this mod might be something for you. It focuses on the various Greek cities on a map ranging from Carthage to the western part of the Persian empire, with plenty of hoplite action.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61181

GiantMonkeyMan

04-11-2006, 17:13

Teleklos Archelaou

04-11-2006, 17:20

There is so much going on with the 1.5 port and the new units (getting them in) that we have our hands full with those. Unit recruitment also will change more as more units get into the game, so working a lot on unit recruitment right now gets bumped a little bit in order or importance right now (but that doesn't mean it's totally ignored, just can't focus on it now).

QwertyMIDX

04-12-2006, 00:11

any chance on improving iberian recruitment? i can't rescruit ANYTHING in my starting two cities :inquisitive: tis well annoying...
in fact can you fully complete the recruitment system as one of your main targets? cos similar things happen on other campaigns atm

Cheers,
GMM

Yeah, all the iberian units in game right now are southern iberians, eventually we'll have celtiberians and lusitanians too and the peninsula will be a lot more interesting.

Tanit

04-12-2006, 03:34

I was wondering. A lot of the factions in the game start out going into debt unless you disband their fleet and maybe even a portion of their army. The reason I think this is wrong is because if the state couldn't have afforded those troops and ships then they wouldn't have had them in the first place, would have been in debt at the start, and certainly wouldn't have prospered in history using those units as we know they did. I am assuming of course that the forces you have placed in the start are heavily researched and considered. Just a thought.

Another thing I would like to see is some pirate eleutheroi ships and possibly pirate ship mercenaries as these people played an important role in history including appearances in Spartacus' revolt, the Illyrian wars, and the crusade of Pompeii against the pirates.

Teleklos Archelaou

04-12-2006, 03:43

If they were all weak the human would steamroll them. They start out strong - the human has the ability to disband the ones he doesn't need. It's a pretty simple way of trying to start things off on a level playing field for human vs. ai.

khelvan

04-12-2006, 03:54

We can't do everything exactly like history. Force composition and costs represent the drain of a standing army on a faction's economy. The debt which factions incur at the beginning is purposeful.

Crac des Chevaliers

04-13-2006, 08:57

This is not a big problem, but I still find it to be fairly annoying. It concerns roman unit cards for the late Triarii and especially the Cohortes Reformata. It is not that there is anything wrong with the way they look, but the problem is that their helm ornaments make it difficult to see exactly how many soldiers are present in the unit. During a battle I like to be able, with a quick glance, to see if the unit is taking loses and how fast, so I can take appropriate action. I would be very grateful, if these unit cards could be changed just a little bit, so the helm doesn’t cover the number of soldiers.

nikolai1962

04-13-2006, 08:58

A lot of the factions in the game start out going into debt unless you disband their fleet and maybe even a portion of their army.

Sometimes if an ai faction doesn't start with a fleet it never builds ships later. weird but true

[TAG]ImperialMarch

04-14-2006, 07:00

there are pirates... trust me
*cringes*

Mithradates

04-15-2006, 10:40

A bit late but cheers Geoffrey S

Ragabash

04-15-2006, 13:41

Hmmmm.... let me see.

Could you make it so you would need to build all lower regional buildings for the "best" regional building ("1"), by cutting building times of them of course?

In regions where you would only need to build first regional building, you would just need to build "4" first (fast), then "3" (of course building times would not be the same for the buildings), "2" and last "1".

This would just give the region kind of developing feeling. And as I love traits I think there are just too many of them.

I hope you understand what i meant, as I just woke up. I just didnt want to idea go away :2thumbsup:

Teleklos Archelaou

04-15-2006, 14:31

Ragabash

04-15-2006, 15:12

There may be a process of making a type2 more truly like a colony, and getting more troops *if* a second level of type2 is constructed, but that's all we have in planning right now - though more is possible and has been discussed. But it will probably wait till the port is over anyway. Introducing new things before the port is tricky - but we are trying it with a few.

What I meant is you would need to build each goverement type to get "best" ("1") goverement type.

Or if the type "2" is best you can build in certain region you would need to build type "4", then type "3" and last type "2". Of course building times would need to be changed but I dont see that much of an problem. :book:

https://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8871/untitled5gp1.jpg

I love M$ paint :laugh4: :laugh4:

paullus

04-15-2006, 17:53

hmm...wow, i love ms paint too!

i thought the government system was meant to represent types of rule. there isn't so much a progression from one to the next, as there are different reasons for doing different ones.

I think EB could try to make the differences between governments a little more pronounced. For instance, one of the lower level ones should give a good happiness bonus (for allowing self rule) but also a (smaller) negative law bonus (for allowing self rule). As it is now I think its just -5 for each, or something like that, for most type 4's.

So, for example: type 4, increase in trade, +10/15 happiness, -5 law, morale bonus (maybe)
type 3, increase in trade, +5% tax, -5 happiness, +5 law (esp if 3 is a tyranny)
type 2, increase in trade, -2% tax (because colonists often got tax breaks), +5 happiness, +5 law, morale bonus of some sort
type 1, increase in trade, +5 happiness, +5 law, morale bonus

Ragabash

04-15-2006, 18:04

hmm...wow, i love ms paint too!

i thought the government system was meant to represent types of rule. there isn't so much a progression from one to the next, as there are different reasons for doing different ones.

I must disagree. In my opinion many towns did evolve from small colony to great trading post in the history. This change would also bring different kind of ruling for the cities.

For an example: you dont have to change goverement from "3" ---> "2" if you dont see it good option. I think if you want to see "homeland" ("1") in one of your conquesred cities, provided you are able to build one in there. Your city should change to it little by little, from different rule to another rule, eventually being considered as "homeland" for nation rather than being considered as "homeland" province ones your troops storm the city.

chemist

04-16-2006, 05:33

paullus

04-16-2006, 13:22

I must disagree. In my opinion many towns did evolve from small colony to great trading post in the history. This change would also bring different kind of ruling for the cities.

Those sorts shifts didn't happen every couple of years, and they weren't methods of control for an empire. In an independent city, sure, there might be civil strife, an oligarchy takes over, and a year later they're overthrown for a democracy. Sure. The Romans, for instance, gave many cities nominal independence at the start, and only "Romanized"--if at all--much later.

For an example: you dont have to change goverement from "3" ---> "2" if you dont see it good option. I think if you want to see "homeland" ("1") in one of your conquesred cities, provided you are able to build one in there. Your city should change to it little by little, from different rule to another rule, eventually being considered as "homeland" for nation rather than being considered as "homeland" province ones your troops storm the city.

I'm not sure I understood your first bit there. And I follow your thoughts that you want a homeland province everywhere, but I strongly disagree. You may want to take advantage of the trading experience of the local population, or they specific military traditions of their people. If you install a 1 or 2, you--at least should--lose those advantages.

The 3 and 4 types should be viable options for rule. If you take a well-developed city, you shouldn't have to spend 20 turns making it a homeland. You should be able to install a 3 or 4, and just let the native people do their thing and you reap the benefits with minimal effort.

stufer

04-16-2006, 14:36

I would love to see all population growth rates curbed dramatically for the next release. As the Romans I had conquered Sardim 5 years previously and not enslaved or anything because the population was at 9000. Now it has more than doubled in 5 years and its just an island in the middle of the med. In all my Italian cities I have chance to build 2 or 3 other buildings before the next stage of city is ready to be built.

I think most cities should have a very hard time getting to even city level. Only a few choice ones should get to Huge level and even then fairly late on in the game. Most should only be able to grow to higher levels if you keep particuarly good governors in them and/or enslave a lot.

This is all possibly related to the shift to 4 turns a year as is the rate at which your family members aquire traits and retinues. I send all my youngsters to Rome until they're 20 and in just 4 years they have filled up on their ancilliary list with no room to acquire new ones. Perhaps all of these rates need adjusting too if that is possible.

Teleklos Archelaou

04-16-2006, 14:59

i noticed that in europa barbarum, alot of work has gone into identifying the different gaul/germanic factions. i thought this was a little one-sided and was hoping the same could be done for the nebateans. i know there is a faction limit so im not saying a new one should be created but maybe if a couple more units were added as mercenaries. when i played rtr i loved the cool arabian infantry and cavalry but i always wished that there would be archers and skirmishers as well. overall, i feel that representing various arabian elements would make that huge desert area a bit more interesting to play.:jumping:
Well, skeletor has made a couple of very nice low level arabian units for us. And I think a higher level one from that region is in the works too, though I don't think it's finished. I hate fighting in that area and having pantadapoi and numidian horse cav as the only things around. :grin: Hopefully we will have some of them in the next build.

Ragabash

04-16-2006, 16:23

I'm not sure I understood your first bit there. And I follow your thoughts that you want a homeland province everywhere, but I strongly disagree. You may want to take advantage of the trading experience of the local population, or they specific military traditions of their people. If you install a 1 or 2, you--at least should--lose those advantages.

Hmmmm.... I think my poor english is coming on the way explaining myself again :inquisitive:

What I mean is that you could not build gov "1" or "2" just anywhere, just like it is now. But you would need to build "4" to build ----> "3", "3" to build ----> "2" and "3" to build -----> "1" for an example.

EDIT: Of course I could be all wrong and this idea could had been tried and just not found too great to add it in the game, so sorry for spamming in this forum. My english just comes in the way sometimes when im trying to explain something more complex.

paullus

04-17-2006, 00:06

I think it was suggested in the "suggestions for .74" thread, but I'd just like to reaffirm that having new tree models would be way cool.

khelvan

04-17-2006, 00:42

If our farming script is in place for the next version, which it may be, we'll be able to reduce population growth rates to a more appropriate level.

chemist

04-17-2006, 06:26

i'd like removal of several units in the game such as "elite mercenary bands". that gets way too specific because im sure there was quite a number of famous mercenary squads available all over the world, so why just add the ones that were from europe. i just think that they can be removed in favor for more units of other factions.
also to my understanding the mod focuses on the general time period for all factions, and not just rome and greece. so i thought it would also be pretty cool to add chinese mercenary units available to the yuezhi as they were neighbors and frequent trading partners as well. :balloon2:

khelvan

04-17-2006, 07:23

Mercenaries have been added on an availability basis. If the unit had been made, it was added to the mercenary pool. In general, mercenaries are low priority compared to faction and regional troops, so they will be fleshed out later.

Wardo

04-17-2006, 08:21

I don't know if this is possible in 1.5, but if it is, wouldn't it be great if Thorakitai had a sword? Well, they carry one in their skin, but if they could use it, I'd have my very own Eiperote immitation legionnaries! :2thumbsup:

"Roman influence" my ballooney :balloon2: , they aren't influenced unless they draw their swords out. :sweatdrop:

Well, I'm sure there's a good reason why so many troops who carry a sword in their bodies can't draw them in battle, I just wonder if it's because EB isn't 1.5 yet, or BI for that matter.

Sdragon

04-17-2006, 19:41

Peltests are almost Thorakitai, they use swords too. :)

nic

04-18-2006, 17:15

If scripted events are possible in 1.5 how about having the Italian revolt against Rome of 91bc (and possibly the later Spartacus revolt) scripted. I know its supposed to be an alternate history but events like that would keep the game interesting. I also know its slightly late in the timeframe but I find that I rarely finish campaigns because they seem to offer diminishing returns to effort (fun to begin with but get a little dull, especially policing an overblown Empire). Scripted events like these would keep the campaign fresh.

cunctator

04-18-2006, 18:04

Something like this is already in the que for new scripts, but with dynamic conditions.

nic

04-18-2006, 18:45

Have you guys thought of using different .exe files to offer different campaigns? I just installed 'The First Triumvirate' and was impressed by the way they did that. Obviously this would be extremely low-priority but could it allow additional factions to be added to EB?

Teleklos Archelaou

04-18-2006, 18:52

It's taken us an incredible amount of time to get factions, units, setups for 272, and everything else just for what we have (and we still aren't done). It'd be cool to have multiple campaigns or what not, but they'd lack content differences and setting up scripts for them, new histories, etc. would be exceedingly difficult for this mod in particular.

abou

04-20-2006, 10:44

Would it be possible to make the warcry special ability frighten elephants? To take this a step further, would it then not be too much out of character to give an ability similar to the warcry to the pre-Marian Roman units that do not already have special abilities?

I am under the impression that it was general noise making that upset the elephants and allowed the Romans to carry their own against Pyrrhus and at the battle of Zama. I would assume that by the Marian reforms, the chances of the Romans fighting against elephants would be small enough that there learning of this ability would not be worthwhile militarily and would just be forgotten, meaning no conflicts with the testudo.

Mithradates

04-20-2006, 17:27

Going further couldnt u have some kind of shield banging for roman troops or atleast horn blowers or something?

edyzmedieval

04-20-2006, 21:25

Can you fix all the units cards for 0.8 guys?

Plus, please explain one thing. Why the urge for 1.5? I know it's a better AI, but at least on 2 chapters it sucks, at which 1.2 is much better:

-diplomacy
-abilities

Generals hardly get any good abilities. And if they get them, especially command and management are worth more than 1 million denarii.

Teleklos Archelaou

04-20-2006, 21:29

-Better battlefield AI
-Can set individual faction's core attitudes towards other factions
-Can move culture groupings around
-Resolves some graphics card issues (mine looks a lot better on campaign map -1.2 was causing fuzziness in lots of places)
-Fixes coastline problems in 1.2
-Fixes cavalry charge bonus problem
-It does something else really cool I'll not mention here

edyzmedieval

04-20-2006, 21:38

Many pluses. You're the Al Capone anyhow here. :grin:

Dooz

04-21-2006, 00:50

-It does something else really cool I'll not mention here

That's not cool man, not cool. Why would you do that? Why, I ask you?

Teleklos Archelaou

04-21-2006, 01:25

Oh, c'mon. It's not some big secret, people who have modded it (1.5) probably know, but we still won't come out and say it and we'd probably like folks to continue to be coy about it. Needless to say it's a good thing. :grin:

tk-421

04-21-2006, 03:39

-It does something else really cool I'll not mention here
I'm guessing he's referring to the extra faction slot that will be opened up. I'm probably wrong though, as I usually am.

orwell

04-21-2006, 06:16

If our farming script is in place for the next version, which it may be, we'll be able to reduce population growth rates to a more appropriate level.

Will this affect just how fast they get to their maximum, or will it re-define the maximum? Also, how far will these effects spread? While a 24k+ city in the steppes seems a little odd, as I understand these are just the biggest representives in the area, if you were to reduce it to only the second tier in population, it would seem like your cutting out a lot of the village that didn't make it in due to limits. If one did decide to cap it at a much lower rate, is it possible to change how fast it will grow back to that limit?

I'd also like to suggest a finish for the unit cards, I'd be nice to know what I just recruited or am facing without first having to send it into battle.

edyzmedieval

04-21-2006, 12:03

-It does something else really cool I'll not mention here

Got your drift Teleklos. :grin:
Can you work your way around the diplomacy with 1.5? I'll send a mail to CA about the diplomacy stuff. ~:)

Teleklos Archelaou

04-21-2006, 14:26

I don't know what other issues with diplomacy exist actually. If anyone wants to point the problems out to us (where they have been found elsewhere), please do. We haven't gotten the core attitudes all worked out yet, but we certainly hope to have them done by the next build.

tdiith

04-21-2006, 23:46

Quick Question:

I have talked a friend into trying EB (an 82nd AB friend)--he's had some bad mod experiences crashing his system. When will 8 be coming out? Would you recommend he wait for 8 (if it's coming soon) or just go ahead with 7.4?

Rich

Teleklos Archelaou

04-22-2006, 01:09

Most mod members think 074 is very stable - if you know there is one thing that can cause problems and you work around it by avoiding those type battles or just rely on autoresolve on them (but they are usually big ones - so it's hard to hit autoresolve on those :grin:). We won't give any estimates on the next release though. But I think we can safely say it won't be this weekend or the next :grin:. If they want to play as KH or celts or Maks, I'd say go for it. If they really want the best experience for other factions, they might wait. Romans are good too, they just have much more on the way.

The Choosen

04-24-2006, 19:20

u should have glads for the romans since they really did use them in that time period i think.

edyzmedieval

04-24-2006, 20:05

Huh? After the Polybian reforms, the Romani have the gladius.

208BC - Polybian Reforms

Ludens

04-24-2006, 20:16

u should have glads for the romans since they really did use them in that time period i think.

Huh? After the Polybian reforms, the Romani have the gladius.
I suppose he means gladiators.

The Choosen, as far as I know these gladiators were equiped as common legionaries. There is limit to how much units can be added, and the EB team has planned up to this limit, so they don't like to impliment gimmick units that were used only once or twice, especially not when they can be represented with ordinary units.

Welcome to the Org, BTW ~:wave: .

edyzmedieval

04-25-2006, 14:16

Actually, the limits are:

-255 for models
-500 for units

So basically, you just need to throw an already used model and reskin it. And you get gladiators, still looking like hell. ~D

Ludens

04-25-2006, 14:38

Actually, the limits are:

-255 for models
-500 for units

So basically, you just need to throw an already used model and reskin it. And you get gladiators, still looking like hell. ~D
I don't see how this contradicts what I said.

edyzmedieval

04-25-2006, 15:08

EB can't possibly have 500 units!!!!

300,at the most. And you said they are at the limit. How? :inquisitive:

QwertyMIDX

04-25-2006, 15:25

You have to consider planned units as well.

Ludens

04-25-2006, 15:55

EB can't possibly have 500 units!!!!

300,at the most. And you said they are at the limit. How? :inquisitive:
Actually, I said they have planned to use all units up to the limit.

edyzmedieval

04-25-2006, 20:59

You have to consider planned units as well.

How many? ~D

khelvan

04-26-2006, 03:24

We will no doubt continue to add units until we have reached the 500 unit limit. We already have 255 planned models.

edyzmedieval

04-26-2006, 18:22

We will no doubt continue to add units until we have reached the 500 unit limit. We already have 255 planned models.

:jawdrop:

Oh my god...EB rules. :shock:

khelvan

04-27-2006, 02:53

This is nothing new, we've had 255 planned models for about a year.

edyzmedieval

04-27-2006, 17:32

Wow...Long live EB and it's team. ~:cheers:

mcsquared

05-01-2006, 17:26

I have been playing the beta EB for the past few weeks and would like to congratulate the EB team for an absolutely excellent job! The one suggestion I would like to to offer concerns the EB map. There are many little islands that are "invisible" to both land troops and ships. I understand that for realism purposes that these little islands are included on the map. However, since they are "not there" from a player perspective and that they they are too small to have anything but a square shape, they detract from the overall appearance of the map, I would suggest removing most of them.

Dayve

05-01-2006, 19:15

I just installed RTR 6.0 again to play whilst i wait the next EB version with the added units and more polishedness and whatnot... I can't play it. EB has made RTR obsolete even though it is still a beta... When it's released fully i can see RTR becoming entirely obsolete, even its future builds.

They're quite hostile to EB fans over at the RTR forums... Just mentioned a while ago that although RTR is more finished, it is second best. The response i got was something like "We don't f** need EB fanboys here." ...But it's true... RTR IS second best now that EB is here... RTR isn't even realistic when compared to EB, but anywho, RTR is unplayable for me now.

Any rough estimation on the date for the 1.5 port yet?

Teleklos Archelaou

05-01-2006, 20:36

You'll get no precise dates or even estimates of dates (for release of the build), but I think we have just about reached the tipping point where we move all of our efforts from porting to adding new stuff to the build now and correcting some things that we wanted to wait till after the port to handle. At least that is what seems to be the case from my point of view.

edyzmedieval

05-01-2006, 21:19

I hate RTR. I don't even wanna go to their stupid forums....

Anyways, thanks Teleklos. That's awesome news. :grin:

mcsquared

05-01-2006, 22:52

As a person who has played BOTH RTR and EB, I find both games very enjoyable. Yes, they are different but I believe that that is a good thing in that there are different experiences to be had playing both games. I do not make comparsions and will not criticize the hard work that BOTH RTR and EB people have done to give us these improvements in RTW at no cost to us! However, because of all the fun I have had playing both RTR and EB, I will tell you one game I will NEVER play again: original RTW!

MaximianusBR

05-02-2006, 00:07

That's REALLY important to improve the game quality:

*Make the gaesatae a litle weaker, they are really overpowered...

*Make the Kleruchoi Agemata weaker too, they are REALLY overpowered!!! maybe you can do it by make then units litle, maybe 120-160 in Huge, now they have 240!!!

*Reduce the Elephants javelins weakness.

*Put Barbarian walls in the game...

You guys will change it?

orwell

05-02-2006, 00:54

The gaesatae will remain the same, they're supposed to be that powerful. I think the agemata will see a unit size reduction though. I couldn't say for the rest.

Blitzkrieg

05-02-2006, 01:19

First off, Europa Barbarorum is the epitome of excellence!
I can not wait for the release of v0.8.
I do; however, have a few suggestions...
-have unit cards for all the units throughout the mod
-enable homeland romani provinces in southern italy
-include dynamic reform triggers. It's tough waiting 660 turns for the Gaius Marius Reforms

p.s. you guys should work for CA

khelvan

05-02-2006, 01:24

The elephants will be adjusted.

The walls problem will be addressed when we can define our own cultures. I.e. with 1.5.

Please don't bash other mods here, or other mod teams, or other mod's fans. You can talk about EB and how good we are :2thumbsup: without comparing us to other mods, though I know the tendency is there to do so.

Modders respect each other, and we would appreciate the enjoyment of our work without feeling the need to say unfavorable things about others. If you must compare, please do so in a clinical way.

MaximianusBR

05-02-2006, 03:58

and the kleruchoi agemata will be reduced?

edyzmedieval

05-02-2006, 12:38

If you must compare, please do so in a clinical way.

Be sure to make a spelling check to compare your writing. It's cynical. :grin:

Wasn't the Kleruochoi Agemata powerful? The Ptolemaioi were experts in Phalanxes.

Krusader

05-02-2006, 12:53

Be sure to make a spelling check to compare your writing. It's cynical. :grin:

Wasn't the Kleruochoi Agemata powerful? The Ptolemaioi were experts in Phalanxes.

The Kleruchoi Agemata represents the elite of the Ptolemaic phalanxes.

The Basilikon Agemata represents the elite of the elites again.

No one has complained on the Basilikon Agemata so much it seems. :laugh4:

Although with what units have you faced the Kleruchoi Agemata with? In the next update the Maks, Seleukids and Pontos will get some new toys to "even the elite phalanx balance" with. ~;)

MaximianusBR

05-02-2006, 16:29

Wasn't the Kleruochoi Agemata powerful? The Ptolemaioi were experts in Phalanxes.

they are the elite but should have 160 soldiers not 240 in HUGE...no elite is so numberous!

edyzmedieval

05-02-2006, 16:38

they are the elite but should have 160 soldiers not 240 in HUGE...no elite is so numberous!

True, it was really expensive to maintain large numbers, but the Ptolemies had the agriculture very developed, which gained them huge revenues, along with trading. ~:)

@Krusader

Awesome. I can't wait. :grin:

MaximianusBR

05-02-2006, 17:07

The Kleruchoi Agemata represents the elite of the Ptolemaic phalanxes.

The Basilikon Agemata represents the elite of the elites again.

No one has complained on the Basilikon Agemata so much it seems. :laugh4:

Although with what units have you faced the Kleruchoi Agemata with? In the next update the Maks, Seleukids and Pontos will get some new toys to "even the elite phalanx balance" with. ~;)

they're cause GREAT damage to my more numberous Principes, Hastati, some Triarii, numidian placeholder...good units....

they will be correct with 160 soldiers...that would be right...

Avicenna

05-02-2006, 21:42

Leaving the KH as weaklings waiting to be squashed? :shocked:

The Gaesatae are meant to be a challenge and can be countered easily if you know how to counter them. Elephants are supposed to be very weak to javelins.

There's already a discussion about barbarian walls. They're going to be put in.

Avicenna

05-02-2006, 22:01

Could poison be added? Read a bit about poisons recently. Poison could make the troop morale lower, and any unit hit would eventually die from poison. The Scythians especially (and Indians, but they're not in EB) were famous for having their feared arrows: they caused maximum pain, gruesome deaths, were painted in a snake-like design and had barbed arrowheads. They also had remarkable accuracy and had a range of over 1600 feet with their composite bows. This should easily outrange any normal foot archers.

The Greeks also used poison, with many mentions of it in Herakles' Twelve Labours, the Iliad, the Odyssey and other myths. In fact, almost all the peoples at the time used poisons, apart from the Romans (at least as far as we know). The Nubians with their poison javelins, poison arrows of the Kenyans, snake poison of the Libyans, to name just a few. Also, the barbarians (so probably the Gauls, Germanians, Britons and Iberians, but no mention of them directly) including the Getae, Dacians, Skythians, Turks (peoples from Asia Minor at least) all used poisons. Even the Indians used poisonous arrows, which were just as gruesome and feared as the Skythian poison arrows. The author even says that Alexander's armies feared the Indian poisons more than the elephants, as a small cut was almost a guaranteed death unless a Hindu medic that was used to poisons was present. The Skythians even managed to defeat an Alexandrian army with their arrows, firing 20 per minute with deadly accuracy.

orwell

05-03-2006, 02:43

very interesting, but, could it be added? If your character has just a single hit point, then you couldn't subtract from that unless it registers decimals, and even then, do scripts work on the battlefield?

MaximianusBR

05-03-2006, 02:50

the poison can counter the phisician, doctor, chirugeon bonus...but it have to be expensive to give balance to the game...

Avicenna

05-03-2006, 07:50

Death if hit at all, but not instant death. The poisons that caused swift death were reserved for hunting. The gruesome, excruciatingly painful poisons were left for war, to demoralise the enemy. 3000 Harmatelians ran out of their settlement in an attempt to defeat Alexander with their poison arrows, but the Hindu physicians of Alexander knew how to cure the infection caused. They immediately surrendered. This shows that the poison was incredibly scary, and would have caused most armies to run, otherwise they wouldn't face Alexander.

edyzmedieval

05-03-2006, 12:23

including the Getae, Dacians

It's the same thing. Getai used by Greeks, Dacians by Romans.
Anyhow, it's an interesting proposition. But how could it be included? I kinda don't see how, if it's possible. :embarassed:

khelvan

05-03-2006, 13:26

We have already considered, and rejected, the use of poison. There is not enough evidence to suggest that it was used on a consistent, large-scale basis by anyone.

edyzmedieval

05-03-2006, 17:10

We have already considered, and rejected, the use of poison. There is not enough evidence to suggest that it was used on a consistent, large-scale basis by anyone.

May I ask what have you not considered? :dizzy2: :inquisitive:

Long live EB. :thumbsup:

paullus

05-03-2006, 18:14

Are you making any map/AI traits changes in light of nikolai's research?

Avicenna

05-03-2006, 18:35

Well there's accounts by Herodotus, Frontinius, Pliny, Pausanias, Plutarch, Quintus of Smyrna, Strabo, Ovid, Silius Italicus, Homer (indirectly: describes wounds caused by arrows with snake venom accurately, also giving symptoms), Virgil and others that you probably wouldn't have heard of. Poison is always mentioned in the Iliad, sometimes in the Odyssey, and in myths. Cerberus has poisonous drool, Odysseus, Achilles, Hercules, Paris and Philoctetes used poison weapons, and the Greeks had accurate descriptions of the poisonous plants, where to find them and the symptoms if you had been poisoned. Assassination by poisoning was common as well, with offers to Romans to poison Pyrrhus and Ariminius. The Greeks poisoned the water supply of the Kirrhans with hellebore. Military tacticians always advise armies to camp in healthy areas, obviously having had a history of receiving or giving water that was contaminated. The ancients were very much used to using poison in warfare. Do you think it was a coicidence that when the Spartans were losing in the Peloponnesian War, with their offer of ceasefire was rejected, that Athens suddenly broke out with a plage from its port? The first thing that Athens did was to accuse Sparta for this plague. The Indians also had whole guides on how to poison the enemy and how to counter these poisons, so if the Greeks didn't know about poisons they surely would after having travelled to India and been on the receiving end.

Do you still want more evidence?

edit: add Livy to that list.

orwell

05-03-2006, 19:23

For the sake of arguement, if it were agreed that it would be added, how would it be? Countering ancillaries who heal after the battle is the only possible way I see it. Everything I've seen on scripting says it can't touch the battle elements of the game, only the units, unless you were to create a specific unit that does no actual damage, but adds a value to the number of dead enemy after the battle. Even then, isn't the minimum damage permitted by the system 1 hit point? Theoritically, to represent poisoning a city I suppose you could, through dynamic requirements, spawn a spy that has the plague inside a city, unless the number of additional characters like spy and diplomat can be extended? Could any actual modder comment on even the possiblity of the idea, regardless of it probably not going into EB, if just for balancing sake if nothing else.

paullus

05-03-2006, 22:38

Most reasonable way to handle it (in my mind, at least--which is not always reasonable), would be to have assassins "poisoning" towns by "destroying" baths, sewers, etc. I don't really use assassins for sabotage, so I don't even know if destroying health buildings increases squalor. If it did, that would be the best way to imagine poisoning tactics, if you should so desire.

Might also make another interesting logistics trait..."poisoned water supplies...-x% movement, -y morale"

MaximianusBR

05-03-2006, 22:56

I think if no unit can have this ability, a "poison master":skull: could be used as retinue...he can have a "Reduce enemy army recovery rate"...

And a "Poison specialist":book: to counter that poison master...

what you guys think?

khelvan

05-04-2006, 01:17

Do you still want more evidence?I will repeat what I said.

We have already considered, and rejected, the use of poison. There is not enough evidence to suggest that it was used on a consistent, large-scale basis by anyone.You will notice I did not say there was no evidence of poison use. What I said is that there is not enough evidence to suggest that it was used on a consistent, large-scale basis by anyone. And I'm not talking about poisoning a water supply.

edyzmedieval

05-04-2006, 09:43

Khelv has a point here. :balloon2:

Warlord 11

05-04-2006, 10:02

Khelv has a point here. :balloon2:
Of course he does! Are you suggesting that he does not always have a point!? Death to the unbeliever!

edyzmedieval

05-04-2006, 10:24

Of course he does! Are you suggesting that he does not always have a point!? Death to the unbeliever!

He's just the insanity coordinator, that's all. ~D

Mithradates

05-04-2006, 18:01

I am not sure if there are references to back this up, but did indian peoples use elephants to batter down gates and if so could this be implemented?

MaximianusBR

05-04-2006, 18:07

If EB equip search and not find evidence of use in large scale...and khelvan say...I must agree:2thumbsup:
!!!!Poison this Idea!!!!

spacedouthamster

05-05-2006, 18:40

I think a proper 2 handed pikeman skeleton should be used similar to the one used for the parthian infantry which have the bow and spear (i think they used two hands to hold their spears)

orwell

05-05-2006, 20:09

I think you can already use elephants to batter down a gate, can't you? Or did that get changed?

edyzmedieval

05-06-2006, 13:19

You couldn't use elephants to batter gates, only wooden walls. :balloon2:

Wardo

05-06-2006, 16:40

How about adding Gladius or some other sword to the Polybian Triarii? They don't have Pilum do they? If they don't, it should be possible, right?

abou

05-07-2006, 05:52

You couldn't use elephants to batter gates, only wooden walls. :balloon2:
Sure you can. I've done it plenty of times.

Avicenna

05-07-2006, 13:46

You can use them to batter all gates in theory. In practice, however, if you try to batter gates of a stone wall or above, your elephant unit will get destroyed.

mcsquared

05-07-2006, 21:04

I hope you will have Scorpions in v 8. I believe they were used a great deal by the Romans.

orwell

05-08-2006, 00:05

Will cities reverting to bizarre factions, like Alexandria-eschate going to ptolemy be cleaned up?

Teleklos Archelaou

05-08-2006, 00:09

Alexandria-Eschate never rebelled to Ptolemaioi. A diplomat might have bribed it away, but even that has been reduced so much that it rarely happens in weird places.

But yes, the number of places rebelling to even moderately weird factions will be greatly reduced.

orwell

05-08-2006, 00:37

I guess it was bribed then, odd place for Ptolemaioi to be though.

More spam.

If a family member loves gladiator games, could he have a higher tolerance for how many cities he can exterminate? I recently did a bunch with one general and now he's not doing so well.

edyzmedieval

05-08-2006, 10:37

Will cities reverting to bizarre factions, like Alexandria-eschate going to ptolemy be cleaned up?

Oh my God.... :laugh4:

Oh yeah. Parthian cities in Arabia also. :inquisitive:

Geoffrey S

05-08-2006, 12:13

A suggestion: location details in custom battle setups under the tooltips for the rebel faction. For instance, Arabian rebel units could have something like Location: Arabian peninsula or even a more specific name of the people or city they came from at the start of a description. That way, players can set up custom battles against the rebel faction representing a specific region not represented as a full faction such as Arabian people, Numidian people or Pergamon.

Teleklos Archelaou

05-08-2006, 16:32

Oh my God.... :laugh4:

Oh yeah. Parthian cities in Arabia also. :inquisitive:As I said, these problems will not exist in the next build. It's already been solved in our current in house build. There's always a chance of a province going rebel to some faction that folks think is not logical, but with more flexible culture groupings and the addition of another faction, we shouldn't have problems with this anymore - excepting of course the issue of who does India rebel too, which is always going to be a bit thorny.

Avicenna

05-08-2006, 17:10

The Eleutheroi?

By the way, with the Eleutheroi faction symbol.. are they going to be made into a proper playable faction in the next build?

Teleklos Archelaou

05-08-2006, 17:27

"slave faction" settings as faction creator causes problems - namely that they have presets of a roman type for city icons on the strat map and they also get roman type armies when they rebel. It really is like a 'slave rebellion' takes place in those situation. Plus they still will often rebel to the faction culture in that situation - there's little way we know of of getting around these issues. I think we will have baktria as the faction india will rebel to, if it rebels to anyone at all. Not perfect, but the best of available options.

Eleutheroi aren't having any work that would make them any more a properly playable faction. We can test with them, but I don't think anyone in EB is interested in trying to make them playable more than that.

Geoffrey S

05-08-2006, 19:35

Eleutheroi aren't having any work that would make them any more a properly playable faction. We can test with them, but I don't think anyone in EB is interested in trying to make them playable more than that.
But would my suggestion work, allowing players to set up for instance an Arabian army to play with or against the rebels in custom battle mode, or as various cities or areas represented through rebels rather than a proper faction, with more information than is currently provided? Just something simple, to indicate what kind of army (arabian, celtic, hellenic etc.) they should be added to.

edyzmedieval

05-09-2006, 10:34

Why are the Eleutheroi playable?
Who's derailed enough to play as Rebels?:inquisitive:

Magister Militum

05-09-2006, 14:20

it is not even realistic to make the eleutheroi playable becase they wer never a faction they only represent the 'free' porvinces

edyzmedieval

05-09-2006, 14:23

it is not even realistic to make the eleutheroi playable becase they wer never a faction they only represent the 'free' porvinces

That's very true. :skull:

Geoffrey S

05-09-2006, 15:15

Not on the campaign map maybe, but for custom battles and maybe even historical battles the Eleuthoroi could make it possible to play with units, setups or even 'factions' that wouldn't be available to play as in the campaign game as a full faction; presumably not all units used by rebels will be available for the various fully playable factions (for instance, the Yuezhi as represented in 0.8) in the campaign game and having them available in custom battle would mean players can still use them in some form.

MaximianusBR

05-09-2006, 19:54

can EB equip antecipate to us some of the new units 0.8?

Seleukids Silver Shields will be added?

Equilibrium

05-09-2006, 20:57

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you afterwards~;).

p.s.: patience is always useful

MaximianusBR

05-09-2006, 23:33

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you afterwards~;).

A small price to pay!!:laugh4:

edyzmedieval

05-10-2006, 11:34

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you afterwards~;).

p.s.: patience is always useful

Nothing a good champagne can't fix. ~;)

Equilibrium

05-10-2006, 19:30

Had to be a very good champagne...

edyzmedieval

05-12-2006, 12:30

If you're ok with Dom Perignon or Moet Chandon, then it's settled. ~;)

oscar.k

05-12-2006, 15:54

i have a idea when you have a unit than you have 1 commander
1 flag barrier or eagel barrier end my i idea i 1 that make music
white a horne

Avicenna

05-12-2006, 16:13

The Legions should already have that..

edyzmedieval

05-12-2006, 18:10

i have a idea when you have a unit than you have 1 commander
1 flag barrier or eagel barrier end my i idea i 1 that make music
white a horne

Can you be more specific? I really don't understand what you are saying.

Avicenna

05-12-2006, 19:41

He means that he wants an officer and aquilifer with every unit. Some units have the aquilifer, and many have an optio (officer).

cunctator

05-12-2006, 21:07

Unfortunately every additonal officer, standard bearer, musician means one model less, so their numbers have to balanced with the need for more units to accurately reprsent all factions.

stalin

05-12-2006, 23:30

The crappy skirmishers have an amazing 57.75 throw distance and 10 missiles while the velites only 45 and 8 missiles ,why the decrease in range

QwertyMIDX

05-13-2006, 01:48

Heavier javelin I think, probably has a higher attack. Could be a stat mistake though, I'll look into it.

abou

05-13-2006, 08:59

Is it possible to give a general a trait that would cause his army to be impetuous and want to charge even without orders? Maybe something such as "Eager for Battle" or "Motivator"?

I was reading my Goldsworthy book and it had an excerpt about the Battle of Thapsus written by one of Caesar's officers. It pretty much gave me the idea that this would be an interesting trait: that the army would be so eager to fight or motivated by the general that they just want to rush into battle.

oscar.k

05-14-2006, 17:51

Can you be more specific? I really don't understand what you are saying.:oops:

oke here is the point you now that films ware romans are marching
on the streets,
i have it about te music when you see that.
some body need to make tat
its a motivating music tat will make te sprit of the units up in a Battelle
i tink tat its gaye whit a horn :book:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/nl/e/ed/Hoorn.jpg

oscar.k

05-14-2006, 17:59

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=954512#post954512
on the pic 12 you see a comander and a Eager for Battle
and a horn for battle ? i tink

edyzmedieval

05-14-2006, 19:59

Ahhh. I get it.

Well, probably only the music, because the models are precious for EB, and they need to use it for every historical unit. Some units have the same model though.

Dayve

05-14-2006, 21:03

I suggest you ask for permission and use some of the music from LT1946's mods... There's one song especially, when you first move a unit on the battlefield it starts to play, and the song just sounds so perfect for this period in history, ESPECIALLY if you play as the Romans, because even if you know nothing about history, this one song will just instantly cry ROMAN to you as soon as you hear it... I'll try to find it.

Here it is. http://www.axifile.com?5222425

That song is so perfect for a Roman army marching... Also when your men start to fight, there's a perfect one for that too, i'll uploadith it.

Here it be. http://www.axifile.com?8654365

oscar.k

05-15-2006, 09:31

Dayve

05-15-2006, 10:27

I can't download anything from axifile. Never been able to.. The download link just never generates for me.

spacedouthamster

05-15-2006, 15:28

Would it be possible to take a look at the unit upkeep values beacuse at the moment it seems as if they are too high IMO. A good example would be the parthian horse archers, as the parthians are semi nomadic the cost of upkeep should be a lot less as all the warriors already have horses and basic weapons as part of their way of life so it would not be neccesary for the state to pay for their upkeep, in contrast the roman legionary infantry would be quite expensive to maintain as all their equipment/ lodgings/ food are paid for by the state.

edyzmedieval

05-15-2006, 17:49

Hmmm... EB is intended to make the game harder and much more enjoyable. So basically, no.

But you can do that by yourself. ~:)

Delig

05-15-2006, 18:07

Why not add more provinces to the game? Especially in Greece, oh and I couldn't see Thermon in greece so why not add that, and then add the oracle,which would make it that any troops trained at Thermon have a morale bonus, ote I must admit I am more of a RTR 6.0 player, so I am use to alot of provinces.

Geoffrey S

05-15-2006, 18:25

They're already at the max number of provinces the Rome engine will allow.

Why is everyone so fascinated by more provinces in Greece? It's hardly like it played a major role in the period as depicted.

GiantMonkeyMan

05-15-2006, 18:28

too many provinces often leads to seige after siege after siege... and greece is already bad enough as it is... p.s thermon is in there :2thumbsup:

edyzmedieval

05-15-2006, 18:33

Maximum number of provinces for EB anyhow. It's good as it is, though the map has a lot of bugs and needs to be improved. :book:

Avicenna

05-15-2006, 18:42

Welcome to the org Delig!

Thermon is already in the campaign, as is the oracle at Delphi, which appears as a building in Thermon. I think it does give morale bonuses already.

@Geoffrey: because Greece's history is quite famous amongst most people, as are many of her city states, and not all people are interested in and read about classical history. Greek myths, being so well known, also help in giving most people the impression that Greeks were very influential (which they were) and therefore powerful.

stalin

05-15-2006, 18:49

too many provinces often leads to seige after siege after siege... and greece is already bad enough as it is... p.s thermon is in there :2thumbsup:
greece is not as bad as it was in another mod which I dare not mention

Teleklos Archelaou

05-15-2006, 19:17

It is appropriate though I think that the KH is the only faction that never ever seems to acquire any sort of empire or large landholdings in EB AI progression.

Dayve

05-15-2006, 20:06

Greece has always had this problem... They have a weak army and not the best economy in the world to start with... Although Athens is a money maker, it is only a money maker when you are trading with every city around it as well as land trade with the rest of Greece...

Macedonia on the other hand starts off pretty large with a bigger army, as well as all that superior cavalry.

Althouh i remember in one game of EB, the KH and the Epirotes beat Macedonia and each helf half of the peninsula... Greece the east and Epirotes the west.

oscar.k

05-15-2006, 20:15

i think you hired this before but a better building browser will be good
(i can see -/+ 50% building,s on te browser )

Teleklos Archelaou

05-15-2006, 20:26

Building browser won't really be able to be fixed. It won't show buildings that have an "and not" condition, and most of ours do. The game itself allows the requirements, but leaves them off the building browser if you use them. Brilliant.

edyzmedieval

05-15-2006, 20:36

Don't worry, be happy.

Cheer up Teleklos. ~:cheers:

Dayve

05-15-2006, 20:38

YOOOOOOOO HOO HOO HOO DE DO DO DE DO DE DO DE DOOO...

Don't worry.

YOO DE DO DE DO DE DOOOOOOOOOO...

Be happy....

Hoo de do de dooo...

I have a fish on my wall that sings that when you press teh butt0n. BIG MOUTH BILLY BASS!

stalin

05-15-2006, 20:46

By the way Edyzmedieval why do you hate me?

Daedalus

05-15-2006, 20:54

First of all, congratulations to the achievement of advancing a great game (vanilla RTW) to a brilliant one (EB)! I salute your passion and dedication, EB-dev's! You do make life more enjoyable. AND instructive on things that once were.
Now, ever since I discovered the fun of playing the original RTW two details in it have bugged me, and they still bug me in EB. Perhaps you guys can do something about it.
1. The GLARING red line marking the end of the battle field, destroying the mood which the setting, most often a beautiful landscape, is creating. I find it a bit odd that, when everything else in the game is geared for realism, this practical detail for the game is not. Why can't the border line be marked in a more discreet way, say, a darker shade of the grass, if the line passes over grass, and a darker shade of the rock, if the line passes over rock? It's important to know where this line goes, for tactical reasons, but I don't believe it's necessary for it to be THAT visible (you get a rough idea where the line goes by looking at the minimap). It think you can get a significant boost of the 3D-feel of the open vistas etc if you can make this line disappear from afar and only discernable when up close.
2. The anonymity of the individual unit. Sometimes, when a particular unit has made a heroic effort in saving the battle, for instance, I would have liked to be able to keep track of this unit's fortunes and career from then on, having earned a famed status among the regular multitude of units. But, as soon as I stack this unit with another unit of the same kind, I don't know which one is which. If something could be done to remedy that, I think battles in which units with a known history participate will be even more exciting, since more is at stake: not only the outcome of the whole battle, but also the outcome for the individual units (you don't want to lose a famous unit - other units don't matter that much). Maybe individual units from a civilized faction could be identified by the order number and region in which they were created, like "Century VII Latium" for the seventh Roman unit (of a particular kind) trained in Latium. Or by the naming system for new units used at the time, whenever there was one. For factions which historically did not even fight in closely defined units one could perhaps go along the way which village they are from (taking them all untruthfully as coming from different small villages, for the sake of added interest), like "Warband of (name of village)". Another way is to go through the name of the unit's captain, but that would mean that the captain seemingly survives all battles for a couple of centuries, if the unit survives that long. Not so good. Well, I'm out of ideas...

What do think, EB-dev's and EB-fans?

edyzmedieval

05-15-2006, 21:07

Sorry man, but you simply can't do it because of the RTW engine. Both of them.

By the way Edyzmedieval why do you hate me?

I feel like I'm t3h big clown from Monty Python's Circus, being left out. I don't get it. :inquisitive:

stalin

05-15-2006, 21:10

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54474
ROFL

Dayve

05-15-2006, 21:13

I think the red line is hardcoded... But i've never seen anybody complain about it and i've been reading the forums since before the game was released... I agree though it does kill the mood.

Secondly... There's nothing we can do, the armies are a bunch of nobodies... In MTW each unit had a captain, and if he died another captain would take his place... CA did away with this when they turned over to the dark side and decided to make RTW with as little depth as possible to save time and resources for as much shiney nice graphics as possible to sell as many copies as possible... Only thanks to mods like EB has depth been added to RTW... If it wasn't for EB and RTR i would have stopped playing a long time ago...

edyzmedieval

05-15-2006, 21:19

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54474
ROFL

BIG LOL, ROFL and LMAO. :laugh4:

Twas a guy on TWC who got RTW BI before everybody. And I hated him for that. ~D

Basically a joke. Nothing serious. My copy came 4 days after. :grin:

stalin

05-15-2006, 21:22

I know I couldn't post here since I was a junior member and way to impatient

Dayve

05-15-2006, 21:32

Don't sweat it... BI sucked anyway. I must've played it for all of 3 days before never playing it again... Any mods out for it yet?

stalin

05-15-2006, 21:34

Mods for BI? WHY? I can't buy anything in that shop anymore tho:dizzy2:

tk-421

05-16-2006, 02:44

I noticed awhile ago that some of the rebel faction banners in battles were colorful and had real logos on them. I think it would add a lot to the campaign map if all of the slave "factions" had their own faction banners on the campaign map. I know some rebels have different logos, but I don't know if the game allows for as many individual faction banners as their are rebel factions. I'm sure that this would probably be low priority for 0.8, but its just a thought for something in the future.

Teleklos Archelaou

05-16-2006, 02:54

We found out they can have their own factional battle banners, but not campaign ones. So that's why we broke up the rebel groups even more (to give them even more uniqueness) for the last patch. Unfortunately we can't do the campaign ones. We would have done that already if we could for the strat map though.

Avicenna

05-16-2006, 15:22

Some of them do have different banners though, it's just that they're all in the same colour.

Daedalus

05-16-2006, 15:25

OK, so I will still get bugged occasionally.
I didn't have much hope for my second issue being solvable, anyway. I realized that naming data for units could be tricky to add, if the game wasn't constructed to contain that sort of information from the start.
The other issue is a bigger disappointment, though. When I'm defending outside the cities, especially when I'm outnumbered, I often find a position in the corner of the battlefield the best to defend from, so as to stop the enemy from all too easily coming around my flanks. But when I look at my troops standing there I see this big glaring red line behind them, destroying the sense that they are out in the landscape somewhere (am I pretty much alone using this tactic, since no-one else has complained about this before, or am I just pretty much alone in enjoying not only the looks of the troops, but also the looks of the natural setting for the battles?). Theoretically, it shouldn't be that difficult to do something about the red line, since the information that there should be a colour there already exists, so one would only change the information to a different colour. But if that information is hardcoded, I guess that means it's unaccessible in some way.
Pity.
By the way, another small detail (which other people haven't already addressed). I wouldn't mind if something was done with the text for the quotes at the bottom of the screen when the game is loading something. I have a hard time reading it sometimes as it is now, against the new background for EB. The text for the version number of EB doesn't have that problem.

edyzmedieval

05-16-2006, 15:34

I've sent you an important PM Teleklos. :book:

EDIT: Clear up your Inbox please.

Teleklos Archelaou

05-16-2006, 15:54

I wish we could make shadows appear behind the text to make it easier. Sometimes it's easy, but sometimes it's not, esp. if the text is long. But no one has cracked what makes the font files different or maybe if it's even possible. We may be stuck with that issue unless we either (1) get rid of quotes completely, or (2) make the whole bottom third of the screen basically dark to contrast the yellow font off.

Daedalus

05-17-2006, 14:35

It seems to me that the loading picture for EB was not designed fully with the quotes in mind. Because I don't see the problem with the content, position and sizes of things the designer of the picture wanted to portray having been adjusted to and supportive of the quotes, them being there at the bottom of the screen.
I like the quotes. They bring a certain quality to the game.

edyzmedieval

05-17-2006, 15:56

I love the coins. ~D
Can you guys add more screens please? WITH coins. :book:

stalin

05-17-2006, 22:38

Splash screen of the Casse elite unit, bottom line says something about "curry" which the British didn't get until colonial times:dizzy2:
seriously: it should say carry favor

Teleklos Archelaou

05-18-2006, 03:01

Merriam Webster's Dictionary - curry favor [ME currayen favel to curry a chestnut horse] : to seek to gain favor by flattery or attention

If anyone sees any corrections in those loading screens though, I need to save new versions of them, so I can make changes easily now if there are some that need making. Just let me know here.

stalin

05-18-2006, 06:59

You guys ARE good...
Sorry for the inconvenience

Trithemius

05-18-2006, 09:16

If anyone sees any corrections in those loading screens though, I need to save new versions of them, so I can make changes easily now if there are some that need making. Just let me know here.

I seem to recall that some of the grammar seemed a little torturous, but I can't remember the specific examples now - I'll keep an eye out though.

Greek_fire19

05-19-2006, 00:21

Mmm, it seems good to me, mostly. The only thing I can think of is that there are two versions of the biblical quote about nations not turning against nations and beating their spears into plowshares and yada yada yada. One of them has the original hebrew as well, however, and while a little ancient hebrew never hurt the atmosphere any, it's pretty unreadable unless you speak ancient hebrew. Furthermore, given the size of the quote it rather clutters up the screen, so I'd prefer it if that version of the quote was removed and only the one with the english translation was kept.

Mithradates

05-19-2006, 17:52

Any work being done on making the trees slightly smaller than gigantic or is that a hardcoded issue i remember seeing something on another mod where they made smaller trees.

edyzmedieval

05-20-2006, 23:22

Teleklos said somethig about this issue....

HamilcarBarca

05-23-2006, 04:42

testing

HamilcarBarca

05-23-2006, 05:24

Well here goes - my first post.

I have played RTW and RTR for a longtime now, and I am about halfway through my first EB campaign (as Carthage of course).

I have been active in the developers forum of RTR, serving as a historical adviser on Carthage and the Punic world. I hope some of my contributions/ideas will be included in RTR 7.0 when that gets released!

Before I make any suggestions, I want to say what a great job you have done. The mod is superb, and I'm enjoying it more now than when I started.

Particular highlights for me include;
* faction icons are excellent (its nice to see the proper Carthaginian faction icon!)
* the EB naval system is a superb, simple system; major success here!
* the map is good
* the 'skins' amd models are great
* the EB move towards more expensive, slower builds is a good one; it means that field armies represent a larger investment, and hence their commitment to battle or siege is a bigger decision. This is as it should be.

Some suggestions (in part perhaps driven by a lack of experience with EB on my part);

1) the game needs some Balearic slingers; I note that the EB website refers to them in the Kart-Hadasht section of 'factions', but I cannot for the life of me find any!
2) elephants; as far as I can tell I can only build these in Cirta; the elephant resource appears in both Carthage and Thapsus (to name only two), but I don't appear to be able to build elephants there (and I now have a royal barracks in bot cities). It also appears that Carthage can only build units comprising the smaller african forest elephant. I believe that Carthage should be able to employ Indian elephants as mercenaries; remember Syrus the last of Hannibal's elephants, and Punic depictions of towered-indian elephants.
3) while i like the map, i think that in the spirit of continuous improvement here are some suggestions;
- get an extra province into Sicily (Agrigento); get another faction onto the island; in 272BC Hiero could be said to be an subject-ally of Pyrrhus - why not make Syracuse a part of the Eperiote faction?
- I think that the map structure in North Africa has been well designed to try and minimise the 'war of the sands' between Ptolemy and Carthage - but the best solution is to have fewer provinces in North Africa. Pull provinces out, and make the bulk of the Sahara impassable (It's so big I even sent a spy-explorer all the way to the south of the map to see if you guys had placed a sub-saharan province there).
- Let me say that your Spanish map is, to date, the best I've seen. I'm hoping RTR7.0 might steal the title soon, but for now, its yours. The Guadalquivir Valley in southern Spain should be 'tweaked'; the region of Turdetania (a.k.a. 'Tartessos') should have cities like Illipa and Castulo as its capitals; Mastia should not be Carthaginian in 272BC - it was a Barcid era conquest; Gadir should be (cosmetically) depicted as being on an off-shore island, as it was the BC Manhattan (though of course I'm not suggesting that its an 'island' for the purposes of movement).
- Sardinia is depicted with Kalaris as its capital, and Olbia as its port. This is wrong. In 272BC the largest ports in Punic Sardinia were Tharros, Sulci and Nora - probably in that order. Roman-era Sardinia had Nora as its provincial capital - as is evidenced by the Roman milestones throughout the island. To better depict Punic Sardinia I would suggest a Nora-Tharros or Nora-Sulci combination to serve as capital-port, and therefore represent the south-western focus of Punic Sardinia.
- Megalithic maltese tombs shouldn't be located in western Sicily.
- Two arguments I have waged unsuccessfully among my fellow developers in RTR and that I kindly foreshadow here with you is that (1) Sardinia should be home to two provinces; the south-western half of the island being Punic and the north-eastern half being indigenous Nuragic, and that (2) an extra Punic province be squeezed into western Sicily, being the Punic city of Panormus. My reasoning is that by adding these provinces to Sicily and Sardinia, and stripping provinces from North Africa, you can design a game that better depicts Carthage as being a central Mediterranean power, rather than just sitting in the Sahel and Mahgreb of North Africa!
4) lets get the ship designation system coordinated between the factions! And I would love a skin for the Punic "5er".

I would dearly love to have a dialogue with your 'naval' developers about how we might even further improve it.

Well done on building a great Mod!

HamilcarBarca

Krusader

05-23-2006, 11:36

Thanks for the feedback. I'll answer a few of your questions.

1) We have Balearic Slingers made, but they are going back to the lab for some reskinning.

2) Elephants are still discussed. Giving Carthage Indian Elephants as mercs. Maybe. Maybe not. I will at least forward this suggestion.

3) We are at our maximum number of provinces. The map is not yet finalised and we are talking about rearranging provinces when v1.5 bugs and CTDs have been fixed and probably reducing the North African ones. Adding a province to Sicily might work, but I think other areas might have more priority though.
Sardinia though would probably NOT get split into two provinces.

- Malta is part of western Sicily so the wonders were added to that province to represent whoever holds it, also holds Malta.

- And I'll forward your suggestions regarding Iberia & Sardinia to the mappers.

- I don't recall exactly the events from the Pyrrhic Wars, but Pyrrhos abandoned Italy & Sicily after Beneventum, and I don't think the Syracusans would still remain allied to a loser? That is the depiction of Syracuse I think EB has.

4) I'll get him to reply here. And I think a skin for the "5er" is made/being made.

stalin

05-23-2006, 12:02

Thank god for not changing the already crowded areas. Sicily with 5 provinces looks real crowded just like their greece

edyzmedieval

05-23-2006, 15:24

Hmmm... The map needs some serious bug fixing though.
I'll take me much time to fix the big bugs, mainly coastline ones. :book:
(check my MapMod at the EB Mods subforum)

May I ask who made your map?

O'ETAIPOS

05-23-2006, 17:25

4) lets get the ship designation system coordinated between the factions! And I would love a skin for the Punic "5er".

I would dearly love to have a dialogue with your 'naval' developers about how we might even further improve it.

HamilcarBarca

I'm messing with the ships for EB ~:) I would be probably best to contact with PM's to not steal this thread.

Mithradates

05-23-2006, 17:50

Is there anything that says cities must be square, if so couldnt u make a more interesting piece of scenery to put onto it instead of the big buildings that look a bit stupid. This may sound stupid so dont kill me for saying it.

Teleklos Archelaou

05-23-2006, 18:45

-We have been thinking of other ways to handle north africa and the wars between carthage and the ptolemies. It is still in flux and probably will be in flux still after our next release too. But it's something that there is a fair amount of talk about fixing, so I'd think something will happen eventually.

-The Megalithic monuments are a bit of an issue. Malta isn't culturally or historically associated with the area around Syracuse. It's more appropriate that it would be associated/tied to the western part of Sicily, even though it's further away. Since we don't have malta as it's own province, this is the best we can do. The other option is just delete that unique building, but we don't want to do that really. Hope that explanation makes it an acceptable "problem".

-We had thought about making an internal part of Sardinia into another province, as they are distinct regions there, but we rather would use the province slot somewhere else. This could change, but given the whole general ineptitude of the game to deal with islands and ships and what not, I'd bet Sardinia just remains one province. It's a good point that you made though that might pull Carthage into the med. more.

I'll also add that I really have been pushing to get more descriptions and unique new things added to Carthage as a faction. Some new things have come in now - hopefully building descriptions/building names/ethnicities should make it a lot more enjoyable. They may not make it to the next build though, but I hope folks don't give up on making this faction a lot better. They have a new battlefield GUI now that I've recently got put together. That will be in the next build, and I think it's pretty cool. :grin:

soibean

05-23-2006, 20:15

sorry if this has been addressed or answered on multiple occasions but:
Did Eb release the 2 new factions?
and
Will the pronvinces to the extreme north be removed (since the ... Yuezhi (sp?) arent around there anymore it'd just be a wasteful long march north)
and on last time
Are they getting rid of the sahara and those extremely southern cities in order to free up space for more provinces throughout the map?

Teleklos Archelaou

05-23-2006, 20:51

We have made no decisions about eliminating any provinces. It's possible, but we can't very well tell anyone else when we haven't decided ourselves. We've not released the two new factions, but we did show the icon for one of them.

edyzmedieval

05-23-2006, 21:17

IMHO, you should scrape the Arabian provinces. They are sort of useless.....

Teleklos Archelaou

05-23-2006, 21:55

Well, that's a possibility. I suppose we will have to wait till we get this current build together to be sure. We aren't making any changes with maps I suppose in the immediate future as our map maker has bolted on us like so many other people have. Anybody that doesn't want to help us can leave whenever they want as far as I'm concerned.

Slider6977

05-24-2006, 11:03

Not sure if this has been brought up, as I have not been reading this entire thread. One suggestion I have, if it is possible, is to have the Well Supplied trait extend to Allied faction provinces of which you have military access. I'm guessing this may been an issue that the triggers can't decided between ally or foe, only whether or not it is your own factions' province. However, if it is possible, I must strongly advocate this change. Traveling through allied provinces for which I obtained Military access should net me supplies that will keep my armies sustained. After all, they are my friends. This possible or not.

And not to beat it to death, but I must also agree with the province statements. I have heard your state you lost your mapper TA, and this would not make it in the next build, however I have also mentioned in the past that particularly the middle province in Arabia and the Sahara province should be made sort of no-mans-land, as in vanilla sahara. Also as mentioned, to do away with at least one of the northeastern most provinces. Perhaps to put an additional province for carthage in north Africa, perhaps another greek province, and personally I would like an additional one in southwestern-most gual, as to have south gual split into 3 provinces. Just my 2 cents.