Suggestions for v0.81 [Archive]

View Full Version : Suggestions for v0.81

Pages : [1] 2

Teleklos Archelaou

02-18-2007, 21:53

The old thread was well over 1000 posts and needed to be retired for forum issues. Here is a new one for the same topic.

The end of the last suggestion thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=62652&page=37

The old one will be locked and destickied at this point also.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

02-18-2007, 21:55

Shouldn't it be "Suggestions for v0.82"?

Teleklos Archelaou

02-18-2007, 21:59

Well, they are suggestions to improve our current build, so "for" would work in that sense. We actually don't know what the next build number is going to be at this point, so leaving it as 0.81 won't hurt anything I don't guess. The suggestions part is the main point anyway.

Eduorius

02-18-2007, 22:32

I would suggest to make the download more noob user friendly ;)

I edit to say I love the walls in the campaign map, the new KH general on foot, and also the new Hellenic standard bearers. Great work =)

MiniMe

02-18-2007, 23:40

1. Thanx a lot for the patch, great job, no problems yet;

2. Suggestions/questions about numbers:

2.1. Cretan archers (0.80 ) 80 => Cretan archers (0.81 ) 60
Why? What was wrong with previous amount?

2.2. Sphendonetai (0.80) 60 => Sphendonetai (0.81) 80
Slingers were the most deadly missile unit before, why make them even more stronger?

2.3. Thorakitai (0.80) 80 => Thorakitai (0.81) 100
Torakitae are my favourite infantry, but 100 is too much, I'm afraid.

2.4. As I've already mentioned somewhere before, something's need to be done with Kleruchoi Phalangitai stats. They are elite or what are they?

2.5. Thorakitai Argyraspidai now take just 1 turn to produce. After having a serious war with Seleucid in 0.80, I'm not sure, this is a good idea. Perhaps 2 turns would be better.

3. And please, don't ban me for my next question, but when are you going to release 0.82 with new elephants? =)

L.C.Cinna

02-18-2007, 23:59

I started a new campaign as Makedonia and I have to say no problems so far.

Only thing I would maybe think about is whether adding stone walls to Pella or give it a slightly stronger garrison. The Epirote army is right in front of the town and will attack it in the 1st turn. they don't even need siege equipment because their elephants can do the job on the wooden walls. So Makedonians don't even have the time to prepare before they lose their capital.

It's not so much because of me. I'll take it back, but I think this breaks the AIs neck if the player is some other faction. Dunno if it already was like that in 0.8 as I played SPQR there. I just noticed that Makedonia was crushed by Epiros and KH in that campaign pretty soon as well. I just think the AI will not be able to recover from such an instant blow as you can't recruit any good troops in any of the other towns.

Teleklos Archelaou

02-19-2007, 00:05

The macedonians were almost entirely driven out of Macedonia in 273 by Pyrrhos. It is their capital, but their default base of operations was Demetrias at that time. Instead of consolidating his gains and taking Pella itself and the rest of Macedonia, Pyrrhos decided to bring more of his enemies under his control in 272 and went to the Peloponnese before the year was out. The Macedonians should just barely be holding on to Pella in 272, but be in a strong position to take Athens and fairly capable of holding Corinth also (and in no danger in Demetrias).

Tellos Athenaios

02-19-2007, 00:37

2.4. As I've already mentioned somewhere before, something's need to be done with Kleruchoi Phalangitai stats. They are elite or what are they?

2.5. Thorakitai Argyraspidai now take just 1 turn to produce. After having a serious war with Seleucid in 0.80, I'm not sure, this is a good idea. Perhaps 2 turns would be better.

3. And please, don't ban me for my next question, but when are you going to release 0.82 with new elephants? =)

1) You mean the Klerouchioi Agema? The Ptolemaic Elite Phalanx?
2) All successor elites now take just one turn to recruit.
3) Ah... theoorakia (if I remember correctly)...

A suggestion for future installers:
rather than having one hughe installer consuming dito memory, what about having multiple installers? They have to named accordingly, of course, so you can see what goes first - but still this allows for users with the not so powerfull computers to handle the installation process more easily.

MiniMe

02-19-2007, 06:19

1) You mean the Klerouchioi Agema? The Ptolemaic Elite Phalanx?

Yes :yes:

Fondor_Yards

02-19-2007, 08:35

2.4. As I've already mentioned somewhere before, something's need to be done with Kleruchoi Phalangitai stats. They are elite or what are they?

Ditto. As of right now Pezhetairoi and Klerouchikoi Phalangitai have better stats then the Kleruchoi Agema, which makes zero sense.

2) All successor elites now take just one turn to recruit.

Well after a quick check, all units only take 1 turn to recruit, elites or not, not just for the successors. Well, execpt elephants, but those are elephants after all.

russia almighty

02-19-2007, 08:59

Something needs to be done about german lancemen . I'm seriously thinking that they do need some phalanx formation .

Olaf The Great

02-19-2007, 09:11

Something needs to be done about german lancemen . I'm seriously thinking that they do need some phalanx formation .
Germanic lance-men just use pikes, but not in a cohesive way such as a phalanx. If your Use BI exe a shield-wall makes sense.

Dumbass

02-19-2007, 18:36

I think epeirus are too strong; as the maks I kicked them out of Greece, they then manage to go from just taras to taking rome and capua. The seleucids may be a bit too strong too(or ptolemaioi too weak) because they've already taken alexandria and memphis (by 264) leaving ptolemaioi in the desert. Maybe you could make factions like pontos, pahlav, hayasdan stronger to increase the pressure for seleucids. However I love the knew ways the ai advances; rome now advance south taking rhegium, carthage take sicily which means there is a epic battle for rome (carthage + rome against the epeirotes).

Edit: Could you make the casse family members a infantry unit instead of chariots, because chariots are really a special unit like elephants and shouldn't really be used as family member units as they are very inconvenent. Anyway I read in a thread beofre that the casse generals didn't actually fight on chariots but just used them for transport.

d'Arthez

02-19-2007, 18:55

Grand Lord of Poop~

02-19-2007, 19:17

Grand Lord of Poop~

02-19-2007, 19:24

Tellos Athenaios

02-19-2007, 19:30

AFAIK: the way you recruit your units in the EB campaign directly affects your unit roster in the custom battles.Thus you can't really clear things up there without having to abandon the EB recruitment system - something which I my opinion is more valuable than cleaned up roster.

Foot

02-19-2007, 19:30

can the EB team please, please, please limit the custom battle unit roster to faction-specific?? because at the moment, every faction's unit roster seems like a junk pile scraped together, it takes me like 30 minutes just to choose the units i want!!

thanks in advance :beam:

We already have done. You need to swap out the single-player edu and replace it with the multiplayer edu. This is the only way round the problem, due to the complexity of our recruitment system.

Foot

Orb

02-19-2007, 20:11

Antioch too easy for the Ptolemies to take

It fell on turn 3 to my forces, the Seleucids haven't really got the ability to do anything effective anymore...

d'Arthez

02-19-2007, 20:32

Antioch too easy for the Ptolemies to take

It fell on turn 3 to my forces, the Seleucids haven't really got the ability to do anything effective anymore...

I am currently auto-running a 0.81 game. In 50+ turns, none of the AS / Ptoly cities have been won or lost by the other side. When I wrote that the Ptollies lost Tarsos to the AS - who have lost 3 cities in the East through rebellion.

The human player is a big advantage. In my last 0.80 AS campaign, I was able to reduce the Ptollies to Ptolemais-Theron in about 30 turns - it was the only war I had to fight. And the AS was hardly in the position to do well when run by the AI.

Lovejoy

02-19-2007, 20:33

I suggest a script who gives the AI the amount of money it gets by playing VH. What I actualy suggest is to make hard the standard diffculty. Not VH. This is becasue I think the AI is somewhat boring on VH. Have you ever get an pro, no matter what, on VH?

I were just playing a saba campaing, on VH, and the Selue just kept sending stack after stack after stack against me, its no fun. They did all they could to conquer some poor arabians in the dessert. Never mind the phtolemoi. Or anyone else for that matters.

As I see it VH brings nothing good. Bad diplomacy and worse prioritys. Why is VH standrad anyway? When H is the standard you always have the choise to play VH, for that extra challange you know. :)

Sry I sound so harsh. I realise this is mainly CA is prob/fault.

And, well, maybe there are a reason for having VH as standard. I just havent found it out yet. If thats the case, nvm what i just said. :egypt: :egypt:

Teleklos Archelaou

02-19-2007, 20:49

People who want a real challenge should make a minimod where they give better MIC's to every province (better starting MICs) so that they would face tougher enemies from the very start. Just a suggestion.

Dumbass

02-19-2007, 21:51

well, it really depends. there is a saying among TW gamers that every campaign is different, you know?? just take a look at the faction progression thread and you'll see tons of people complaining that ptolemaios is too strong. :yes:

Yes I know about the faction progression thread, but I'm talking about 0.81 not 0.8, the factions have been rebalanced, some strengthened, so there may be a possibility that because of all the complaints of the ptolemies being too strong; the EB team weakened them, but maybe a bit too much in which they get destroyed too quickly. But you're right in the aspect that every campaign is different, and faction progression pictures for 0.81 will probably soon be posted, so we can see from average how the campaign can be rebalanced.

Also I'm curious into what a campaign would be like on hard, but the ai gets the same amount of money as VH. Just like Lovejoy suggested.

I have a grudge against the lover of beauty trait and would EB consider making it less common and only for the city dwellers to get? It really ruins generals and the point of command stars. But for the time being could someone tell me how to delete the trait so it appears on no one?

bovi

02-20-2007, 00:03

Lovejoy, the AI is something no mod can change. Most people find the AI to be fairly easy to overcome but dislike unfair AI bonuses in battle, and therefore the suggested difficulty is VH/M. The AI gets as much extra money regardless of difficulty setting, AFAIK.

No one is forcing you to conform to the suggested difficulty though, play it the way you like it.

Cataphract_Of_The_City

02-20-2007, 03:15

It seems the unit stats should be looked again and corrected. I support the fellow members who suggested some specific changes.

Thaatu

02-20-2007, 17:40

Foot

02-20-2007, 17:56

How about removing all buildable roads from the eleutheroi. It would somewhat restrict AI expansion to north-east europe, if the rebels wouldn't build road systems to all the steppe and backwater provinces.

Unfortunately we cannot do that. The Eleutheuroi's building capabilities are not defined by "slave" but by their faction creator (or controller or something).

Foot

Teleklos Archelaou

02-20-2007, 18:53

There are also some provinces where you cannot build roads and some where you cannot build paved roads. Mostly desert areas. Arabia for example.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

02-20-2007, 22:25

There are also some provinces where you cannot build roads and some where you cannot build paved roads. Mostly desert areas. Arabia for example.
I think all desert (EDIT: that is all desert that is landlocked) and maybe the steppe should be added to that.

But here is my suggestion:
Change the population bonuses on grainaries to happiness bonuses. The people are happy that they have food. Something like 5%Happiness for the first one, and 10%Happiness, and 5%Health for the second one. The health would both give a little population growth and represent that people eating well are less likely to get sick than the malnurished. This would primarily alleviate some of the population explosions.

Thaatu

02-21-2007, 09:22

Also you might consider removing/modifying some growth related traits and/or ancillaries. Like an overseer is something that is pretty much included in farming upgrades and doesn't really need to be part of governers' retinue. Since the minimum bonus that any trait/ancillary/building can give is 0.5% (which if you think about it is huge, considering it is for a season), some of the smaller bonuses could be scrapped. Just a suggestion if all else fails.

On this note, Sardinia and Corsica are huge by 234bc. Almost gave me a heart attack when I seized them with my not so masculine forces.

antisocialmunky

02-22-2007, 02:29

2.3. Thorakitai (0.80) 80 => Thorakitai (0.81) 100
Torakitae are my favourite infantry, but 100 is too much, I'm afraid.

Agreed, I'd say, increase Thureopholoi numbers to 100 and decrease Thorakitai to 80. Thureopholoi should be the standard, not the Thorakitai. They definately seem somewhat neglected to me. Also, Thorakitai can beat Imperial Legionaires which seems a little off balance.

Also, since you took off hoplite swords, what about hypaspistai?

mcantu

02-22-2007, 05:05

Gallic Light Cavalry and Gallic Mercenary Light Cavarly both have a Charge Bonus of 1

Thaatu

02-22-2007, 09:20

That charge bonus is probably for their missile weapons, not their melee. There's some bug in the display.

Watchman

02-22-2007, 11:16

The charge bonus the info card shows is for the unit's primary weapon - in the case of the Epos, a javelin.

blacksnail

02-22-2007, 23:56

But here is my suggestion:
Change the population bonuses on grainaries to happiness bonuses. The people are happy that they have food. Something like 5%Happiness for the first one, and 10%Happiness, and 5%Health for the second one. The health would both give a little population growth and represent that people eating well are less likely to get sick than the malnurished. This would primarily alleviate some of the population explosions.
We are taking a hard look at all the pop growth stuff for the next major release of EB. QwertyMIDX has already downgraded many cities' base farm levels to fix the population explosion in 0.80. We are hoping to get some feedback on 0.81's growth from the community.

Tellos Athenaios

02-23-2007, 02:56

Agreed, I'd say, increase Thureopholoi numbers to 100 and decrease Thorakitai to 80. Thureopholoi should be the standard, not the Thorakitai. They definately seem somewhat neglected to me. Also, Thorakitai can beat Imperial Legionaires which seems a little off balance.

Also, since you took off hoplite swords, what about hypaspistai?

1) Classical Hoplites, slightly lower defense, but same size as Thureophoroi and considerably cheaper. Thus, balancement would be messed up. To raise the Thureophoroi unit size would be a good thing, perhaps both can be set to 90?
2) I asked about it once, and an EB member told me that the hypaspistai use both swords & spears, and because of that the game insists on displaying the sword when the unit is iddle, of if a man stands up again after being hit.

Kralizec

02-23-2007, 20:10

This may sound like a crazy idea, but...

Is it possible to add a trait file that each family member gets when a new faction leader takes the trone, wich causes a +1 or +2 unrest penalty? The trait would represent the difficulties associated with a new monarch/princeps/whatever being accepted as the new king. The trait would be temporary, of course. Say, 4-6 seasons.
Something like:

Restless people
The new Basileus isn't hailed equally by all his subjects. Some of the more discontent members of the upper strata are probing the water for a chance to rebel. It will be some time before the Basileus' authority is truly consolidated.
Game effects: +2 unrest

EDIT: decrease in cost of bribe would also make sense, I think.

Fondor_Yards

02-23-2007, 21:34

Great idea mate.

Thaatu

02-23-2007, 22:15

That's a sweet idea.

antisocialmunky

02-23-2007, 23:34

1) Classical Hoplites, slightly lower defense, but same size as Thureophoroi and considerably cheaper. Thus, balancement would be messed up. To raise the Thureophoroi unit size would be a good thing, perhaps both can be set to 90?
2) I asked about it once, and an EB member told me that the hypaspistai use both swords & spears, and because of that the game insists on displaying the sword when the unit is iddle, of if a man stands up again after being hit.

When I tried the Hypaspistai against some of the upper tier hoplite units, they got shredded horrifically despite their Royal Infantry counterparts doing fairly well. That's the only reason I ask.

Ludens

02-24-2007, 13:32

After our discussion about the Megas Alexandros mission, I thought it would be nice to add more such missions to the game. I was thinking of a mission for Makedon to destroy the Collosus of Rhodos. Would it be possible to implement such a thing? After all, it was a symbol of defiance against Makedonian rule.

BozosLiveHere

02-24-2007, 15:41

Geoffrey S

02-24-2007, 16:16

But would such missions even need an image or event card? I rather enjoyed the missions involving "uniting the German tribes" or suchlike, adding character to the family members acquiring such traits. Perhaps, if an image is needed, it could be through ancillary portraits?

This may sound like a crazy idea, but...

Is it possible to add a trait file that each family member gets when a new faction leader takes the trone, wich causes a +1 or +2 unrest penalty? The trait would represent the difficulties associated with a new monarch/princeps/whatever being accepted as the new king. The trait would be temporary, of course. Say, 4-6 seasons.
Something like:

Restless people
The new Basileus isn't hailed equally by all his subjects. Some of the more discontent members of the upper strata are probing the water for a chance to rebel. It will be some time before the Basileus' authority is truly consolidated.
Game effects: +2 unrest

EDIT: decrease in cost of bribe would also make sense, I think.
Nice idea, I hope something like that can be implemented. It would force players to be cautious when a new faction leader is appointed.

antisocialmunky

02-24-2007, 18:21

I would also think that it might be interesting to have the opposite of that like 'Celebrating People' if a inept(crazy, perverted, completely retarded, military failure) faction leader died and was replaced by someone not inept or a faction that you were at war with was crushed.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

02-24-2007, 22:53

I have a script suggestion to fix a RTW 'bug'. First some questions:
Is it possible to set standings to "neutral" using the script?
Is it possible to add a time delay to a scripted even?
Is it possible to add the destruction of a faction as a trigger?

Have you ever noticed that you can't make an alliance with somebody because you were at war with one of their allies when their ally died a century prior? This seems retarded. My suggestion is that apon the death of any faction, all other factions have their standings toward the now dead faction switch to neutral so that diplomacy can continue amoung the surviving factions. Maybe add a timer to represent that their former allies are mad and unwilling to be the friend of their old friend's killer.

Tuuvi

02-25-2007, 05:57

I think the Saka's economy need some serious looking into. I took Bin-kath and Gava-Saka within the first two turns of the game, disbanded my forces and have been trying to build my economy since then. 20 turns later I'm not getting anywhere. I know nomads are supposed to be poor but it's kind of ridiculous. Also the nomadic system seems kind of messed up. All three of my provinces are nomadic yet I can recruit foot archers in all of them.

khelvan

02-25-2007, 08:27

All factions, including nomads, must have a foot unit buildable, or they cannot expand as the AI.

Gazius

02-25-2007, 10:29

To me, the biggest problem would be finding event messages we could use for these missions. Right now, we're having trouble getting ones that work with the missions we already have (like Alex's tomb, Roman Triumphs and the Seleukid Anabasis)

What about the... historical events that used to pop up RTW from time to time, being displayed on the side bar when faction announcements and that sort of stuff come down? Or is that what your refering to?

Domitius Ulpianus

02-25-2007, 14:31

It has probably been considered already, but just wanted to suggest here the change Foot proposed for the KH General and replace the Epilektoi Phalanx for the Spartiates Hoplitai or some other non phalanx unit that you guys consider appropiate. It's just that the General in permanent phalanx formation is a lil bit of a pain.

Thanks all!:bow:

Ludens

02-25-2007, 17:12

To me, the biggest problem would be finding event messages we could use for these missions. Right now, we're having trouble getting ones that work with the missions we already have (like Alex's tomb, Roman Triumphs and the Seleukid Anabasis)
Pity. Although the Collosus mission should be easy if you can get Alexander to work.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

02-25-2007, 21:14

What about the... historical events that used to pop up RTW from time to time, being displayed on the side bar when faction announcements and that sort of stuff come down? Or is that what your refering to?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those are triggered by turn number alone and can't be dynamically triggered. :wall:

Thaatu

02-25-2007, 21:58

Suggestions to Roman AI expansion:

Could it be possible to restrict eleutheroi recruitment in Rhegion and Messana? This would help Rome to take southern Italy a little earlier and would encourage Carthage to siege Messana. Second would be to strenghten the eleutheroi garrisons of Segesta and Bononia, for they were Rome's expansion route only after the first punic wars.

Plus, didn't the first punic wars trigger when Carthage sieged Messana and Rome declared war, not the other way around? There should at least be a second trigger for the historical way.

Zarax

02-26-2007, 20:25

Could some trait text cleaning be possible for Carthage?
Sardinian related things should refer to Nuragic (the civilization) and not Nuraghi (the stone towers)...
Also, is Carthage supposed to recruit libians and liby-phoenicians outside africa?

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

02-28-2007, 08:21

My suggestion: reassign the creator/founder/culture of Persia so that the Seleucid territories that rebel go to Parthia, no matter the upgrade level of the settlement.

Rilder

02-28-2007, 10:30

How about some traits for governers when they govern a city for awhile that would show some history about that City+province.

Count Belisarius

02-28-2007, 22:54

Suggest (respectfully) nerfing the triggers for the "Supervisor" trait. Once the empire (and the imperial family) gets to a certain size, having to worry about each and every family member sitting too long in one place gets a little . . . tedious. This can ruin an experienced general sent into (temporary) garrison to produce offspring.

Southern Hunter

03-01-2007, 23:50

Can I request that the prevalence of traits and retainers be reduced please?

While greatly appreciating the work that has gone into traits, and the wide variety of interesting things going on, it seems that the likelihood of acquiring traits and additional retainers is so high that it becomes a bit of a blur.

I have generals with long, long lists of traits, which, rather than giving them character, make them almost inpenetrable and hard to know what their character is. It would be sweeter if each new trait was 'hard won' and they had only enough that I could actually remember and use each one.

Similarly with retainers, it seems easy to get a whole retinue, such that swapping them between generals is scarcely necessary, just wait and get a new lot.

Thanks,

Hunter

bovi

03-02-2007, 00:06

I like plenty of traits, I love nurturing and watching my generals become glorious, wrecks or insane. I don't know if you or I are alone in our views though.

However, traits are awarded based on a percentile chance, given that some other conditions are fulfilled. If you want to reduce the likelihood, you can rather easily reduce all chances to half or whatever you'd like (I'd leave 100% chances alone though). The relevant file is eb/data/export_descr_character_traits.txt.

Gazius

03-02-2007, 01:21

I love the traits as well, I hope they'll be expanded even further, one of the real selling points to me for EB is that you guy is no longer a man in service of his people, but a real character who you can watch over as he becomes insane from the slaughter of millions, a bloodthirsty warmonger out to conquer all, or a peaceful governor who brings joy to his city.

soibean

03-02-2007, 04:59

Can you guys arrange more scripted wars or whatever it is you call them

I mean in the case of when Rome attacks Messana or when Pontus attacks Sinope...
I was thinking maybe having war declared upon the faction who attacks Pergamum (sp?) by Rome since they had a treaty at some point - and I also think the last king gave his kingdom to rome didnt he?

On very hard Rebels are supposed to be more aggressive up to the point of attacking undermanned cities and armies. Is there anyway to make the AI rebel faction so aggressive as to make its own armies and attack nearby towns? I was thinking maybe something along the lines of all the barbarian tribes of the north which constantly raided eachother. It could help AI expansion since an assault could drastically weaken a nearby rebel settlement and make it easier to take over

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

03-02-2007, 05:31

If you are talking about rebels attacking rebels, that is impossible. RTW sees the rebels as a united demi-faction.

bovi

03-02-2007, 15:36

EB uses immobile rebel governors to make the cities keep a decent garrison, this slows down progress and deters the blitzkrieg so common in vanilla. Additionally, the spawned rebels are annoying and spurned by most players, so they are toned down. There is no way we can have this AND have strong marauders. Not to mention that we can't control the campaign AI to combine forces.

soibean

03-02-2007, 21:53

I didnt mean rebel attacking rebel since its the same faction I dont see how that would work. I was thinking something along the lines of if a faction was notorious for being attacked by certain tribes, then programming that rebel town to be more aggressive.

By the way, I think you guys might have missed a spy's death in the Makedonian campaign. There is a random spy, fully upgraded, near the northern shore of the Bosphorus, I think thats what its called, and it seems like he was supposed to be one of those guys who should die in the beginning of the game to portray knowledge of that area.

Kepper

03-02-2007, 23:13

Can you make some sage the new recruitment mic of some faction like Baktria use the same Makedonia they masthe use the mic forme Seleukid Empire after the are a Seleukid Empire satrap, and Ptolemaic Empire , Saba they close une and another. Sorry about words :book:

Teleklos Archelaou

03-03-2007, 00:48

Proximity alone isn't what determines who shares MIC complexes - but some factions that are much like other ones might share theirs - like the gauls, or ptolemies and seleukids. We won't be changing that pattern up at this point as it was pretty complex just to get it working like it is now.

Elminster12

03-06-2007, 04:20

Just a query....should Thraikoi Peltastai have 11 melee attack and 20 defense? By comparison, Pantodopoi Phalangitai have 11 attack but 15 defense. Just wondering....it seems a little much for a skirmisher...

antisocialmunky

03-06-2007, 23:13

Remember, that defense is composed of three actual values. That and Pantodopoi Phalangitai kinda suck.

Conqueror

03-07-2007, 00:17

Don't you dare to speak ill of Pantodapoi Phalangitai :furious3: It's one of the most useful units in the game IMO. The only phalanx you can actually afford to use as eastern greek faction in the early years. And it gets the job done. In fact, I just witnessed amazing performance by these guys in game. Was besieging Side from two sides, because I couldn't merge my armies. The garrison sallied out and of corse they attacked the small captain-led part of my forces instead of the bigger general-led part. So no benefit out of my general's traits. What's far worse though was that I accidentally allowed AI control over my reinforcements, which was most of my troops, leaving me only 3 units led by a captain :wall:

Long story short, those units were predictably doomed, unable to link up with the braindead reinforcements coming from the other side of the map. Couldn't hope to withdraw them either as the enemy started too close (no town walls) and their cavalry would have easily catched my all-infantry units. So I set them up for a last stand. Two of the three units (including my captain who got killed) were overwhelmed but one of them, a Pantodapoi Phalangitai, refused to rout. I could hardly believe my eyes, but despite their commander dead, their friends routed and themselves being surrounded, exhausted and taking a charge in the rear (admittedly, by an almost completely decimated cavalry unit) they just kept on fighting! Eventually they were destroyed, as they were just hopelessly outnumbered. But they made the enemy pay a massive price in blood and sweat for taking them out. If it were possible to make our own unique buildings in EB, I'd be erecting a monument in the honor of that unit.

Sorry for this off-topicness but someone has to stand for the poor levies who so courageously fight and die for the petty ambitions of their warmongering tyrants :yes:

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

03-07-2007, 01:05

Was besieging Side from two sides, because I couldn't merge my armies. The garrison sallied out and of corse they attacked the small captain-led part of my forces instead of the bigger general-led part. So no benefit out of my general's traits.
That's why you only besiege a town with one army. Have the other armies come up to the town but not attack it. They will reinforce a battle, but they are completely safe from the army inside the city. Plus, since you can't use siege equiptment made by multiple armies, there is no real point.

Teleklos Archelaou

03-07-2007, 01:31

For the first time a day or two ago I had the besiegers sally out and attack a secondary group I had sieging the town (with no equipment). My primary army showed up as reinforcements, carrying their seige equipment across the red line - first time I'd ever seen that happen.

swhunter

03-07-2007, 01:45

Hi
will this modd have updated skys ?
As i have seen on RS modd ?

Also what do the spartans look like?
and other greek units since this next update.

Can you give a list what was updated?

thks

Foot

03-07-2007, 01:51

Hi
will this modd have updated skys ?
As i have seen on RS modd ?

No

Also what do the spartans look like?
and other greek units since this next update.

The same.

Can you give a list what was updated?

It is quite literally all listed on the first page. Go and check.

Foot

antisocialmunky

03-07-2007, 15:59

Don't you dare to speak ill of Pantodapoi Phalangitai :furious3: It's one of the most useful units in the game IMO.

:2thumbsup: No worries mate, we've all had those experiences where one unit bravely sacrefices itself to save our butts and goes out in a blaze of glory.

I don't really doubt their usefulness but in the grand scheme of things, I don't play the big hellenic states and usually end up making a sport of killing the hordes of them Big Grey hires. Good to know that these guys have a hero complex though if I finally start a Mak game. :laugh4:

Elminster12

03-09-2007, 01:28

:2thumbsup: No worries mate, we've all had those experiences where one unit bravely sacrefices itself to save our butts and goes out in a blaze of glory.

I don't really doubt their usefulness but in the grand scheme of things, I don't play the big hellenic states and usually end up making a sport of killing the hordes of them Big Grey hires. Good to know that these guys have a hero complex though if I finally start a Mak game. :laugh4:
The Baktrian ones suck though...fricking cowards! I swear it had nothing at all to do with them being captain-led and flanked! Seriously....

Ok, before I get warned for spam....any way to move one of the starting Getai armies closer to Kallatis? The Getai still seem to have trouble getting themselves going...maybe give them a spy around Sarmiszegethusa or move that northern army closer to Kallatis and see if the AI can add two and two once in a while? Because I'm at a loss with them...every other faction seems to be able to expand most of the time...

Fondor_Yards

03-09-2007, 03:35

The Baktrian ones suck though...fricking cowards! I swear it had nothing at all to do with them being captain-led and flanked! Seriously....

Ok, before I get warned for spam....any way to move one of the starting Getai armies closer to Kallatis? The Getai still seem to have trouble getting themselves going...maybe give them a spy around Sarmiszegethusa or move that northern army closer to Kallatis and see if the AI can add two and two once in a while? Because I'm at a loss with them...every other faction seems to be able to expand most of the time...

Yea. Whatever you did to the Lustianians, Seleucids, Steppe Tribes, and Casse to have them finnaly wake up as faction and due stuff, plz do to the Getai. Us Getai fans will love you for it.

Oleo

03-09-2007, 14:12

Something I love to see is pools of mercenary's consisting of several regions like in RTW vanilla. This might help stop the insane merc. recruitment of for instance the romans in germania.

Another minor suggestion (unless there have been changes since 0.81a) is to change the descr_event_images.txt file with these changes.:

building_completed
icon settlement
heading_items 6
format
{
title center verdana black
string center verdana_med khaki
bodystring left verdana_sml khaki left
image center
spacer 8
multistring left verdana_med black center
multistring left verdana_sml khaki left
}

unit_completed
icon military
heading_items 5
format
{
title center verdana black
string center verdana_med khaki
image center
spacer 8
multistring left verdana_med black center
bodystring left verdana_sml khaki left
spacer 8
multistring left verdana_sml khaki left
}

retraining_complete
icon military
format
{
title center verdana black
string center verdana_med khaki
image center
spacer 8
multistring left verdana_med black center
bodystring left verdana_sml khaki left
spacer 8
multistring left verdana_sml khaki left
}

building_repair_complete
icon settlement
format
{
title center verdana black
string center verdana_med khaki
bodystring left verdana_sml khaki left
image center
spacer 8
multistring left verdana_med black center
multistring left verdana_sml khaki left
}

as opposed to the original:

building_completed
icon settlement
heading_items 6
format
{
title center verdana black
string center verdana_med khaki
bodystring left verdana_sml khaki left
image center
spacer 8
string center verdana_med black
multistring left verdana_sml khaki left
}

unit_completed
icon military
heading_items 5
format
{
title center verdana black
string center verdana_med khaki
image center
spacer 8
string center verdana_med black
bodystring left verdana_sml khaki left
spacer 8
multistring left verdana_sml khaki left
}

retraining_complete
icon military
format
{
title center verdana black
string center verdana_med khaki
image center
spacer 8
string center verdana_med black
bodystring left verdana_sml khaki left
spacer 8
multistring left verdana_sml khaki left
}
building_repair_complete
icon settlement
format
{
title center verdana black
string center verdana_med khaki
bodystring left verdana_sml khaki left
image center
spacer 8
string center verdana_med black
multistring left verdana_sml khaki left
}

which will prevent text from overlapping:

https://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7478/textis1.jpg

Last two are the current situation, top 2 are with the changes above.

Elminster12

03-10-2007, 20:45

Oh...just a head-up. Something is screwed up with the Temples of Men and Mithra for Pontos. Men gives trade bonuses and Mithra gives Farm bonuses, but the priests give the other temples bonus(i.e. Priest of Mithra has a trade bonus and Priest of Men has a farming bonus). So, I'm guessing something is flip-flopped there...though I forgot to flip-flop it in my original post..:clown:

Numahr

03-11-2007, 09:55

Hello,

Why not a "Corvus" reform for the Romans, a little bit like the Cataphract one for the Seleucids, if it is possible. If Romans are defeated on the sea by Carthage, then they would get the possibility to develop ships equipped with Corvus, better than anything Carthaginian ship.

(I doubt script triggers may allow it though. But well!)

mAIOR

03-12-2007, 18:01

Hi. Could oyu make the roman trait system more like the Imperator mod one armywise?
I mean we would get the option of granting titles to generals other than hope they get them (like consuls and all that).

Cheers...

Makr

03-13-2007, 22:16

Has a garrison script ever been discussed?

antisocialmunky

03-14-2007, 00:12

Is the Olympic Games trigger supposed to fire when the general is running around in the field or only in cities? Right now it gets everyone in cities that's applicable but most of my generals in the field get it too...

Also, would it be possible to make the 'supervisor' trait go away after the general leaves a city for while or an anti-trait for it?

Hiberno

03-14-2007, 12:01

Any chance of a Hibernian faction? Cúchulainn and Na Fianna deserve a chance to wreak a bit of havok!
Love the game by the way, its amazing how far you've brought it from the original.

Master Chef Fain

03-14-2007, 14:46

Cúchulainn would be a great addition.

Registered just now to post a huge thanks, congratulations, and other assorted compliments because I know modding is a mostly thankless task, and one whose payment is solely in the love of the labor itself and the pleased user. I have modded a few other games outside of TW and used countless others, and have to say this is the most detailed, well written and all encompassing one I have used. Have formed this opinion after using BE for a mere week, but am astounded at the historical accurateness, not many people know of any Celtic tribes much less their role and placement in history, it is truly a delight seeing them here, and the understanding and detail of the various military units represented across the board. Also like the occasional variations in spellings of various groups which is reflective of actual variations during this era (and now).

I use this mod with BI patched to 1.6 with no issues thus far. Also, are there advantages (specific to region/unit limits and other game issues) to porting this to the MII engine? Know from personal modding of TW that each game since Medieval works in a similar fashion, but your team must clearly be getting into the true "nitty gritty". Anyway, will keep this short so as not to wear out my welcome, keep up the fantastic work.

antisocialmunky

03-14-2007, 16:28

Played my first .81a game and noticed that the Illician Thorakitai size might have been overlooked when Thorakitai sizes were reset to 80(Large).

Fondor_Yards

03-14-2007, 19:27

Any chance of a Hibernian faction? Cúchulainn and Na Fianna deserve a chance to wreak a bit of havok!
Love the game by the way, its amazing how far you've brought it from the original.

The Goidilic were considered among other factions, but the Saka and Saba won the last two slots. But for EB 2 I'd expect the Goidilic tribes to be a faction.

Teleklos Archelaou

03-14-2007, 20:40

Thanks for the kind words Chef Fain. Hope you get a lot of enjoyment out of it not just with the Celtic factions but with the others too - they all have similar levels of detail or will by the end of this.

paullus

03-15-2007, 00:59

hey for those asking about the Getai, we're working on some changes to the starting set-up, and I hope the changes will help the Getai expand, especially toward Kallatis.

MoROmeTe

03-15-2007, 11:15

The army that is halfway between Kallatis and Olbia needs to be moved closer to Kallatis and maybe the army in Buridava sgould start out of the city closer to Naissos? And I am sure there are some tweaks in relations that can be used to get a boost to the starting Dacians...

The Errant

03-15-2007, 13:06

OK. It just looked on the EB worldmap posted on the gameplay guides subforum. It occured to me that the reason the Seleucids are allways pestering the Sabeans lies in the Arabian territories apparent vulnerability.
Also the AI tends to take the "shortest route" to it's target.

The Seleucids want to go to war with the Ptolies. OK. Let's go trekking across the desert. Same thing goes the other way around. Sure on the map it looks like the shortest route, but with any kind of basic roads going from Mesopotamia via Syria and Ioudaia should be faster than trekking across the desert.

Please make the Arabian province impassable and unconquarable. Make Nabataia province impassable for all parts except the immediate surroundings of Bostra and the southern coastline. Also restrict roadbuilding in Nabataia, Tadmor and Sinai provinces. If you have to allow roads in Nabataia restrict them to the surroundings of Bostra and the coast.

Sinai may have to keep the ability to construct roads, but should be restricted to the most basic level. No paved roads or highways.
Tadmor is clearly a desert province and it shouldn't have roads either.

I think these changes would help to balance the game considerably. And eliminate the unrealistic desert wars between the Ptolies and Seleucids. It would also help the Sabeans early game not to have to look over they're shoulder at Arabia province, all the while expecting the next Seleucid stack coming south along the hostile desert.

Alkiviadis

03-16-2007, 12:27

Is it possible in the future the team add some cities?
Maybe Thebes,Argos,Nice,Naplese etc...
The game will be more better or will be a mess?
What is your opinion?

Foot

03-16-2007, 13:02

Is it possible in the future the team add some cities?
Maybe Thebes,Argos,Nice,Naplese etc...
The game will be more better or will be a mess?
What is your opinion?

There will be no changes like that to the map. Our map has as many cities as RTW will allow us. Unfortunately MTW2 only allows us 198, so when we move to that engine, we'll have even less cities.

Foot

Alkiviadis

03-16-2007, 13:13

Thanks Foot...
I remember before two years when i played RTR had more cities how's that?
Anyway...it has too much cities...
Thanks again...

Foot

03-16-2007, 13:50

Thanks Foot...
I remember before two years when i played RTR had more cities how's that?
Anyway...it has too much cities...
Thanks again...

No they didn't, they just had areas such as greece packed with cities, but other areas with less. RTW allows no more than 199 provinces on the map, both RTR and EB can have no more than that.

Foot

Dumbass

03-17-2007, 12:40

Gah, why do CA insist on putting caps on everything like amount of settlements or faction limit.

L.C.Cinna

03-17-2007, 18:48

Here are some of my personal suggestions for further improvement. The mod is great and I love it but I'd maybe change these things:

-as some people said before, I'd reduce traits. It's just too much. I have around 70 active family members and can't take care of all of them constantly and they end up fat, stupid and negative in the end.

- change the triumph trait. It's practically impossible to get. I have great generals who are victors over some people, subiugator athenae, a.s.o. and never get it.seems bugged.

- check generals bodyguards. while some like Sweboz, Roman, KH,... seem to be ok. Carthaginian generals seem way too overpowered and most of them get up to 100 guards. Those guys are superhuman, imho.

- change model of Marian legionaries. The braccae should be removed on all Marian troops, helmets of Antesignani and Cohors Evocata really need to be changed. Evocati wear a later Gallic, don't remember the Antesignani now but I think it looked Italic when I last time saw it (will check ingame again)

- reduce rebels spawning maybe.

- I don't know what could be done about Parthia. I would like to see them a bit stronger. In all my campaigns so far they were wiped out by Baktria.

- maybe a multiple temple addition would be nice. that would make other minor temples like the one to Vesta or Iuno or Mars more interesting as secondary temples.

Boyar Son

03-17-2007, 23:56

If the AI is somwhat moddable (or whatever part of it is) EB should focus on that (battlefield AI I mean).

I havent heard anyone from EB talk about what they're doing to the AI.

Alexander the Adequate

03-18-2007, 01:35

I have two suggestions:

1. Give nomads major economic aid:help:

2. Create a full Punic war script script (traits, family member spawns, units being deployed over the alps, etc.):skull:

Ludens

03-18-2007, 02:47

If the AI is somwhat moddable (or whatever part of it is) EB should focus on that (battlefield AI I mean).

I havent heard anyone from EB talk about what they're doing to the AI.
A.I. performance on the battlefield can be improved through optimizing the formation files, but that's about all you can do to influence the battle A.I. The EB team has made their own historical formations, but they aren't fully optimized yet. In the mean time, you could try one of Thorlof's formation modifications in the unofficial modding forum. I haven't tested them myself (will do so soon), but I am told they do improve the battle A.I.

Foot

03-18-2007, 15:04

Create a full Punic war script script (traits, family member spawns, units being deployed over the alps, etc.):skull:

You ain't getting hannibal. EB has a policy that while we set up the historical conditions at 272BCE, we do not follow history (except for such things as reforms, and we try to have them as dynamic). Caesar, Marius, Sulla etc are not going to be spawned, we are allowing you to recreate history. The same thing stands for units being deployed over the alps - happened because Hannibal planned it so, and we will not force it.

Foot

Elminster12

03-18-2007, 15:49

Another Pontos nitpick....Priest of Kybele ancillary gives a Farming bonus, but the temple itself has nothing to do with farming. Not that I mind having a bunch of good farming ancillaries...but, it doesn't seem right...just a heads-up. Gotta make sure you people don't forget my fave faction!:whip:

Alkiviadis

03-19-2007, 08:44

No they didn't, they just had areas such as greece packed with cities, but other areas with less. RTW allows no more than 199 provinces on the map, both RTR and EB can have no more than that.

Foot

Thanks Foot...
So in one province had 2 or 3 cities right?

Foot

03-19-2007, 08:52

Thanks Foot...
So in one province had 2 or 3 cities right?

No, you can only have one city in a province.

Foot

Rilder

03-19-2007, 10:20

I was just reading about that Jewish holy temple thing in the region of moderday Jeruesalem and I was wondering if I could be possible via scripting so every time you'd destroy it a few years later to a decade it would get rebuilt.

antisocialmunky

03-19-2007, 14:30

I don't really think that is correct.

The Romans only destroyed it once - the second one rebuilt by Nehemiah and Ezra - , killed 2 million Jews, and banned Jewish return to the area because they were too annoying to deal with. The Babylonians destroyed the first Temple(Solomon's restored by Josiah).

Judaism then became decentralized and based around interpretation of a spoken law by certain Rabbis(the outgrowth of the old Pharesee sect seen in the Greek Scriptures) that (J/Y)H(V/W)H gave Moses via the Talmuds rather than the old Jewish law if my knowledge of Jewish History is correct.

Teleklos Archelaou

03-19-2007, 16:25

That will get fixed when we totally redo priests as ancillaries in the hopefully near future elminster. Our trait dept (bozos) knows about it.

L.C.Cinna

03-19-2007, 19:13

That will get fixed when we totally redo priests as ancillaries in the hopefully near future elminster. Our trait dept (bozos) knows about it.

Referring to my post before:
Do you know if the Roman units will be redone as well in the future?

Foot

03-19-2007, 19:45

Referring to my post before:
Do you know if the Roman units will be redone as well in the future?

The current Roman FC is making a very large list of changes for current roman models. However these are obviously a low priority, so don't expect them for the next release.

Foot

Teleklos Archelaou

03-19-2007, 19:48

I don't know anything about Roman unit equipment. I can't answer questions on that. I will say that the number of traits will not be reduced and that parthia is undergoing major changes still, in response to some other questions you posed.

HFox

03-19-2007, 20:05

I have around 70 active family members and can't take care of all of them constantly and they end up fat, stupid and negative in the end.

Mine are all heading that way too ~:thumb:

...this ai is just like real life :)

L.C.Cinna

03-19-2007, 20:09

@Foot:ah thank you. I do understand that it's not a priority. the current models are great and I'm just asking.

@Teleklos thank you. Can't wait to see what you're going to make out of Parthia ~:)

Great mod. thank you all for the great work. :yes:

Elminster12

03-19-2007, 22:09

That will get fixed when we totally redo priests as ancillaries in the hopefully near future elminster. Our trait dept (bozos) knows about it.
Goodie! I religiously(hah! lame pun) build each different type of temple, according greater prominence to them based upon how the faction revered them(build lots of Temples of Men as Pontos, for example), but I have at least one of each at any given time, and part of the fun is seeing what all of them do and what the priests do(one my problems with BI was that nearly all of that variety was gone.) I often swap them around depending on what a given family member is going to be up to, so it bugs me to have three temples have priests with the same bonus a little....

Swebozbozboz

03-21-2007, 02:16

@cinna - Doesn't everyone end up a lecher, fat, ugly, drunk and stupid? or is it just my family...:wall:

i love all the traits i think they are great! don't get rid of any of them. cinna can just go and delete a bunch of them out of the sciprt as a mini-mod maybe.

on the topic of eb2. i have not played mtw2 so i have no idea on the mechanics of it but i'll paint you a picture of my question: let's say i have a great Sweboz general who has a son who picks up traits like scared of blood and other wussy traits. he may be a great administrator though. my great general understands the importance of a good education but barbarian factions cannot seem to build schools. so maybe, like in the civilisation series,my son could enter into an allied factions city, like rome or athens, and he could get educated and come back? that would be sweet!

antisocialmunky

03-21-2007, 03:44

I don't think you can do that... Though it might be interest to have some sort of 'Former Foreign Hostage' trait that represents a child, formerly kept as a good will hostage in a foreign(allied) court.

Juvenal

03-23-2007, 15:12

I have played the Total War series for many years now (starting with Shogun), and it has always irritated me that buildings have no requirement for upkeep. It seems to me that a major new building, with tangible benefits for your faction, should require a continuing investment to keep it functioning.

If your faction runs out of money, your buildings should start degrading - forcing you to sell buildings you cannot afford to maintain.

It seems to me that scripting may finally provide a way to change all that!

Idea 1. Scripting deducts upkeep for selected buildings and damages them if the money is not available.

Idea 2. Scripting automatically damages buildings at intervals - obliging you to spend money to repair them if you want their functionality back.

I like Idea 2 best, because it creates new strategic decisions for you to make. Also, you can effectively switch it off with Auto-manage.

I believe the AI can cope with damaged buildings - my sabotage results are always fixed on the next turn, but I don't know if scripting can identify which buildings you have in order to decide whether to damage them.

Any interest in this?

blacksnail

03-23-2007, 21:02

Are you sure you don't have access to EB's Backstage? We were talking about that two days ago.

That's all I'm going to say for now. ~:)

Quilts

03-24-2007, 05:37

Now THAT is a really good way of depriving factions of some excess cash :laugh4:

This would place a 'limited' hand-brake on the "I've captured a few provinces so am now unstoppable" syndrome of TW games.

Great idea! Hopefully you EB'ers can do something with it.

Cheers,

Quilts

Little Legioner

03-24-2007, 10:33

I think epeirus are too strong; as the maks I kicked them out of Greece, they then manage to go from just taras to taking rome and capua. The seleucids may be a bit too strong too(or ptolemaioi too weak) because they've already taken alexandria and memphis (by 264) leaving ptolemaioi in the desert. Maybe you could make factions like pontos, pahlav, hayasdan stronger to increase the pressure for seleucids. However I love the knew ways the ai advances; rome now advance south taking rhegium, carthage take sicily which means there is a epic battle for rome (carthage + rome against the epeirotes).

This is so true. Seleucids become a unstoppable monster in few turns due to other small kingdoms weakness. In my few Pontos campaign experiments they crushed me to pieces while i was setting up my economy. I had only Amaseia and Sinope plus a small army because of financial limitations. I'm sure of that other fellas such Hayasdan, Pahlava etc is not so different. For a real challenge and oppurtunity you may give something to small eastern kingdoms.

L.C.Cinna

03-24-2007, 13:43

The Ptolemaioi, Seleukid thing seems quite ok imho. I read from several people here that AS is the uber-monster. Others said that the Ptolemaioi crush the AS. What I noticed is that it often seems to depend on Carthage. If Carthage attacks the Ptolies AS will become the strongest faction there, if the Ptolies are left alone they will crush AS.

I played 3 campaigns with the Romani now. In the first 2 I captured the islands from Carthage and went to Africa. In those games the Ptolies took Cyrene and then crushed the AS completely. this time I attacked Spain after taking the islands and left Carthage for some time until I had captured Gallia. They went east and took all of Egypt. The Ptolies were on the run and AS regained lots of territory until I attacked Carthage and the Ptolies could take back Egypt. then they went to exterminate the AS. Bactria helped in all my campaigns to kill the AS.

I think Ptolies and AS are actually pretty balanced. if AS is weakened more they will be crushed in every campaign. It all depends on where the player sits. If you're in the west and fight Carthage the Ptolies will nearly always win. So maybe the thing which would help is making Cyrene harder to access for Carthage, then the Ptolie/AS fight in the east is a pretty ballanced thing.

Avicenna

03-27-2007, 09:14

Trait suggestion: what about making the 'very unsure troops' decrease the personal security of the general in charge? It's only natural that the troops would be more inclined to bump off a particular fellow who they believe will lead them to their deaths. It should also have an influence drop, and vice versa for 'very confident troops'.

The Wicked

03-27-2007, 18:58

well i don't know if this is the right thread to post this but anyway..: in the hellenic speach the word phalangitai deuteroi is pronounsed
de-fte-ry and not de-u-te-ro-i the letter u is pronounced f and the letters deuteroi are pronounced together as one like this word normally..if you want any help with the pronouncing of the hellenic troops
speech i'm in your service.... i'm greek and the pronouncing in eb is a little funny to me !!!!!!

Tuuvi

03-27-2007, 20:40

I am not a greek speaker so I have never noticed, but I think the reason the pronunciations might sound funny to you is because the EB team is trying to recreate an ancient accent or something like that. There was a big huge argument about it a little while ago, if you do a search you might find it.

Teleklos Archelaou

03-27-2007, 23:31

hellenes

03-28-2007, 21:41

Yeah, this is third century BC Attic Greek, not byzantine or modern greek. We are quite sure the pronunciation is correct there (certainly there may be an occasional vowel that sounds a little odd, but even those are essentially right).

IIRC the koine Greek souded more like the Byzantine one since the New Testament wa written in koine...
But as I remember there is a shortage in the koine pronounciation evidence from 3rd century BC...is that right?

Teleklos Archelaou

03-28-2007, 21:54

hellenes

03-28-2007, 22:10

That is pretty much correct if I understand you correctly. The problem isn't that our Greek isn't sounding like koine did (it doesn't), it's that koine hasn't really come into its own yet. You name the sound and I'll be happy to look up when it did change into the later pronunciations though.

Our priests are chanting the New Testament in the same pronounciation as when it was first written...
And I must ensure you that we still dont understand 60% of it... :laugh4:
Anyway my position is that while the generals should shout in the Attic dialect the troopers of Macedonia/Diadochi would be more appropriate to use the koine pronounciation...
Now of course if we dont have ANY evidence of the koine pronounciation this whole debate is a moot point...

Teleklos Archelaou

03-28-2007, 23:29

Koine developed differently in different regions of the Greek speaking world over time.

In Lakonia it first appears evident in inscriptions in the 1st century BC, but even in the following two centuries the older pronunciations clearly dominate. By the 3rd century AD the percentage of purely koine inscriptions reaches 73% and the rest of them are of a mixed character. This is pretty much the same with both public and private inscriptions. It's gone by then.

In Messenia it progressed more quickly. Some elements started showing up at the end of the 4th century BC, with some form of koine showing up in almost half of the ones in the 3rd century BC, but it sort of halted its pace and met up with the Lakonian pace during the last two centuries BC.

In Kyrenaica it was quite slow. The first purely koine documents don't show up till the 2nd century AD.

Krete varied by regions. Some places had a 50/50 split of at least some elements of koine by the mid 3rd century BC. The use of koine in all regions gained momentum most in the 1st century AD when the increase in use shot up dramatically.

Throughout the Aegean, the use of koine was not very common until the 1st century AD - there are only a few koine inscriptions in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. The local dialects were spoken dominantly even in later times in some places like Rhodes.

The only purely koine inscriptions in the Argolid from pre christian centuries are statues of the ptolemaic king, a roman, and a 2nd century decree of artisans of dionysos. 2nd century BC is the time when it started finding its way into some of the cities, but it was not that common still. Older dialects still dominated even until the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, but 2nd century AD shows the greatest increase in koine inscriptions there and shows the dialect was on the wane.

At Korinthos, only non koine inscriptions survive from 3rd century bc. THe first koine one appears in the 2nd century BC.

In NW Greece and Epeiros, there are no only-koine inscriptions in the 3rd c. BC, save one. Public and private ones show little koine influence till the 1st century BC, though it is creeping in in parts of inscriptions starting, especially in Aitolia, in the late 3rd c. BC. It's a little more common than that in Aitolia, but same timeline progression in percentages of public and private docs. It's really slow to get picked up in west and east Lokris though. With few inscriptions showing up in the BC period.

In Arkadia it's very uncommon to find it in 3rd century (only 1 pure koine document, none or even influence in private documents).

At Delphi, it doesn't show up at all in private inscriptions till 200-170's. It does show up in Delphic Amphictyonic inscriptions as early as 300 though, but it's generally a mix. In contrast Delphic Proxeny decrees have zero koine or koine influences till the AD period.

Very detailed stuff on Asia Minor exists. You can find out when specific sound changes occurred - like 'ai' turning to 'ae/e' (Magnesia in 1st c ad, Priene in 1st c. bc., etc.).

Kypros must have changed earlier than most anywhere else "greek" as the cypriot dialect of greek was in its final phases for the most part by the end of the 3rd century.

Bidialectal speaking must have been common also throughout much of Greece in places where koine starts to spread. But of course its development in the 3rd century BC 'diaspora' to the east is much more furious. Bidalectism of new immigrants and the use of koine in Seleukid and Baktrian lands among natives who were learning some greek and among the military certainly was common. I don't know how much effort should be invested in finding out exactly what the Seleukid, Baktrian and Ptolemaic changes in effect in the third century were though, as most Greeks would still be bidialectal at the least for a few more generations. But if we had limitless resources and time and actors, I'd be fine with working up something more closer to an separate language group for the "eastern greek" culture we have in the game. Does any of this mean someone who believes 3rd century greek was spoken just like it is today (even 3rd century developments of koine where they exist) will care? Probably not. But the people who are really interested in seeing how it changed and the clear evidence of when the changes took place (and what the changes were) are interested in it. That's the audience I guess I'm summarizing this for.

Rilder

03-29-2007, 08:35

Yeah, this is third century BC Attic Greek, not byzantine or modern greek. We are quite sure the pronunciation is correct there (certainly there may be an occasional vowel that sounds a little odd, but even those are essentially right).

All the names are catchy to say to... Theres this voice for one unit thats like "Thorakitai Hoplitai" and I keep walking around muttering this the way its said ingame, constantly repeating this.... :laugh4:

Redmeth

03-31-2007, 10:18

I believe you should make the pirate fleets less powerful at least the ones in the North Atlantic and the Channel, they clearly keep the Casse AI from expanding into the mainland after they conquer Britain they just stand idly, is this intended?
The fleets were giving way too much headaches until I edited them to make them less powerful using instructions in a post by Kull made on the TWC forums.

Static

03-31-2007, 17:52

Ok my suggestions, first off make it easier to gain command stars. I've gained one command star for my generals, and I've fought like 40battles. The first few command stars would be better if they came easier, and then the higher up you need to achieve heroic victories etc.

My biggest problem with the game so far outside of the buggy issues, and incomplete regional units for some factions is the way the rebel faction behaves.

I'm about 3/4 in the sweboz campaign and all I've done is killed these rebel bases which just basically do nothing but behave as lambs to the slaughter, and the way the map is set up there is a ton of them to be slaughtered. It doesn't really feel like i'm playing anyone.

I don't know what the solution is, I guess it'd be better if they were more agressive.

I personally don't really like the pop ups that happen of barbarian units, they just sit there and do nothing.

Teleklos Archelaou

03-31-2007, 18:15

If fighting rebels is the thing you least like, sweboz and casse are the worst two factions to pick. They have huge areas of rebels around them or that they must fight for a long time first. Why is this "broken" then? Just pick another faction - we just don't have any others next to the Sweboz. We also can't influence the way the rebel units act - it's outside of our control but is affected of course by how hard you chose to play the campaign on.

On command stars, we go much more for morale bonuses, which affect your soldiers a lot more appropriately than stars do (stars only affect soldiers near the general, while morale affects all of them under his command I believe). Stars appear more shocking when you see a stack of them, but the morale will help your guys a lot more. Always pay very close attention to your general to see if he should be doing what you are doing with him too - if he gets morale bonuses for attacking or for sieging or if he can't manage supply trains and his men run out of food - all these things are much more important in EB and should be closely considered before marching a stack off to war.

swhunter

03-31-2007, 20:50

Q. What are the dates from B.C. to A.D. on EB ?
thanks

Teleklos Archelaou

03-31-2007, 21:25

272 BC to 14 AD I believe.

Static

04-01-2007, 13:39

Static

04-01-2007, 14:07

Another suggestion I have regarding an exchange on the bugs thread when I mentioned that all my Governors are getting the uncomfortable supervisor trait.

They want to be governor in a larger settlement. They feel their skills are not properly challenged in a backwater tiny village.

Well if that's the case that's a little unfair to factions such as the Sweboz that pretty much only have tiny villages in there area.

I'm gonna put this suggestion on the suggestions thread, but I'd suggest that since the system as present, I'd have to imagine works that when a Governor reaches certain level of management he wants to manage a bigger city. Why not just have it so that he doesn't gain management points up to a certain point for smaller cities (which may already be the case) and leave out the trait penalties which IMO overcomplicates an already complicated trait system, with things that may work for certain factions but not for others as demonstrated here...

Foot

04-01-2007, 16:54

Well Telekos my suggestion would then be to put another faction in that area, or perhaps to increase the initially controlled towns by those factions.

You said that you can't change the way the rebel units act, so I would suggest not putting such a large chunk of the game in a system that reacts so poorly and is inflexible.

There is way fewer rebel towns in the vanilla game, so I would argue the way they were designed was not to be such a big part of the game as it is in this mod. They simply weren't designed to be that significant part of the game. Maybe for the other factions this isn't such a big deal, but my fav faction is the Sweboz so that's why i'm interested.

We can't put a new faction in that area, we have no faction slots left. It would be an even worse travesty if we were to either increase the starting provinces of the Sweboz or (heaven forbid) reduce the number of provinces around the sweboz. This isn't vanilla, but nor is it perfect. We like to think that it is a happy medium, but of course we are still not happy with it. What else would you (realistically) like us to do.

With regards to the command stars, if you can alter them so they affect morale that might be cool. You'd think the soldiers morale would be boosted to go to battle with such a strong general. And either way, even if Morale is a bigger force, i'd still like to see it easier to gain those command stars. I'm usually pretty good at keeping my general close to the bulk fighting so it does affect me quite a bit.

Command stars do effect morale, unfortunately they aren't as flexible or suitable as traits (which effect the entire army). The reason we give few stars to people is because we have lots of traits that give good morale bonuses, to add stars as well would be unbalancing. I don't see what the big deal is except when you want to autoresolve big battles, but then just use the auto_win cheat. Forget about command stars, start worrying about how you are going to feed your troops in enemy territory.

Foot

Swebozbozboz

04-01-2007, 22:29

Well Telekos my suggestion would then be to put another faction in that area, or perhaps to increase the initially controlled towns by those factions.

You said that you can't change the way the rebel units act, so I would suggest not putting such a large chunk of the game in a system that reacts so poorly and is inflexible.

There is way fewer rebel towns in the vanilla game, so I would argue the way they were designed was not to be such a big part of the game as it is in this mod. They simply weren't designed to be that significant part of the game. Maybe for the other factions this isn't such a big deal, but my fav faction is the Sweboz so that's why i'm interested.

The thing is Static, these "rebel towns" are actually independant nations. They are just like the Casse or the Sweboz except you can't control them and under the RTW system can't expand.

If the start date was just a few decades earlier Rome would have only one province and would have to fight "rebels" like the rest of the factions.

Adding more provinces to the smaller factions would be completely ahistoric, since the Lusitannan, Casse, and Sweboz are just single tribes that through the course of the timeframe expand to be a dominant power over it's neighbors, much like Rome.

I personally loved the fact that while playing as the Sweboz i united all the germanic tribes and then emerged from the northern forests to wreck havoc on the celts and romans.

If you would like more factions to go against early, try the getai. they are barbarian and have to deal with the greeks very early on.

MiniMe

04-02-2007, 08:58

While everybody is talking about BI-Shieldwall-formation, I’ve noticed misuse of classic vanilla horde-formation in EB.
I suggest to give this attribute to several groups of units:
1. Gesatae – if these guys are under heavy drugs and don’t feel any pain, who’d expect them to keep square formation? Perhaps, horde formation can portrait them more accurately.
2. Elephants of all kinds – they were clever animals but I doubt they were that clever to keep square formation.
3. Primitive skirmishers of all kinds – since they are primitive and untrained unit, unable to engage, why bother running away in square formation order, running like a horde would be much easier.

And I think it could be great to slightly increase slingers reloading time and gaps between them in their square formation. After all their longest slings where about one meter long, so every longshooting slinger requires 2 meters of free space.

Barigos

04-02-2007, 14:35

We know that it is better for AI if his armies are commanded by family members(with many useful traits,including invisible ones).Can't we greatly increase their fertility via traits,so we could meet more of them in battles?Of course this fertility boost would be available for AI family members only.I know that the amount of births also depends on how many provincies you have,but to me this fertility boost may be useful.

mAIOR

04-02-2007, 17:10

I would also like to ask if it is not possible to reduce the size of trees... I mean Yeasterday I fought a battle at ground level since trees wouldn't let me see the fight.

Cheers...

Imperator

04-02-2007, 18:20

Here's just a quick trait idea, if it's impossible, already implemented or ahistorical somehow feel free to shut me down:laugh4: . Here are some cool traits:

Disciplined Troops: This man keeps his troops in line and knows how to earn respect. +1 morale, +10% movement points
this could lead to...
Harsh Disciplinarian: The men under his command resent this man's heavy-handed leadership, but wouldn't dare say it out lout. +1 morale (?) +15% movement points
on the other side of the spectrum...
Lax troops: This man has trouble stirring his troops to action, and must often resort to entreaties rather than commands in camp or battle. -1 morale, -10% movement points
which goes to...
Idle Troops: The camp now resembles more a bazaar than anything else, and this poor man can't get a word in edgewise with his own troops. -2 morale, -15% movement

and for really bad generals:
Mutinous men: His men have had it with this general and are ready to mutiny. -2 morale, -3 to personal safety

Generals who are bookish, introverted or excessively compassionate will not do well with camp discipline (hard for a kindly scholar to give the order to beat a man to death for missing sentry duty, after all:whip: ) but social, strong, commanding generals will have no problem. I think troops should also become more disciplined if they are moving around a lot, but it they stay in a city or fort for too long, should become lazy. A general who is uncharismatic, dishonest or just loses a lot should be greeted by mutiny.

whad'ya think?:smash:

vonsch

04-07-2007, 19:28

Sheep

04-08-2007, 04:30

Can we tone down the personal security penalty on the Victor/Famous Victor/Conquering Hero trait? Cause seriously, the 2 Influence is nice, but the -5 to personal security absolutely nukes the guy's bodyguard.

I've got a character who has won about a million battles, has 3 Perigiesis (sp?) traits and 8 influence, is over 40, and my faction heir, and his maximum bodyguard is 21 guys because he is a "Conquering Hero".

(edit) Well, wrong guy, his max. bodyguard is 31 guys which is higher but still seems low for my best general.

Thaatu

04-08-2007, 07:57

I didn't know personal security affects the amount of bodyguards. I thought it only affects his chances of getting assassinated. And doesn't influence increase the amount of bodyguards? Which unit size are you playing with?

BozosLiveHere

04-08-2007, 15:16

As far as I know, only Influence affects the number of bodyguards a general has.

Sheep

04-09-2007, 05:09

You should probably read this then:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=47146

edits below:

On Large Unit size:
Base Bodyguard : 24
Leader: + 14
Heir: +8
Personal Security: +2 per point
Influence: +2 per 3 points (whole values only. So at 3, 6, and 9)

Southern Hunter

04-10-2007, 02:55

You should probably read this then:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=47146

edits below:

I didn't know that. Cool. So one can back calculate an exact personal security number given that you know the size of the bodyguard and everything else there. I don't think there is any other way to see that number is there? (in game I mean).

Hunter

Southern Hunter

04-10-2007, 03:06

Can I officially add my request for a change in either the:

- Availability;
- Size of unit;
- Morale;
- Accuracy; or
- Cost

...of slingers, and to a lesser extent, other missile troops, in order to make them less devastating.

It is currently possible in the game to win battles that resemble WWI after the development of machine guns. It was never historically feasible to do this.

Cheers

Hunter

Teleklos Archelaou

04-10-2007, 03:25

I was trying to remember what EB reminded me of! Post WWI machine gun battles! Right on! :grin:

Thaatu

04-10-2007, 10:48

I was trying to remember what EB reminded me of! Post WWI machine gun battles! Right on! :grin:
It's a little exaggerated, but he's got a point. The worst slinger consentrations I've run into are when the Swebóz captured the celtic settlements north of the Alps. They were more fond of the celtic slingers than the militia. Those battles were not fun... But I can only speak on my behalf. Don't know if anyone else has experienced the same.

Conqueror

04-10-2007, 12:39

Sabaens tend to produce lots of slingers in my campaign. It's not at all unusual to see 4-5 of them in an army of 10-15 units. I've countered them by using my own slingers.

The Errant

04-10-2007, 13:58

Sabaens tend to produce lots of slingers in my campaign. It's not at all unusual to see 4-5 of them in an army of 10-15 units. I've countered them by using my own slingers.

Could be cause the Sabaean units are relatively expensive. Most of them are a tad better than the standard cheap eastern levies so their unit expense is quite high. Since the slingers are a cheap base unit with low MIC requirement the AI keeps spawning them for the lack of funds to train the better ones.

Hiberno

04-10-2007, 14:59

Wow, really stuck into my first real campaign. Really impressed as I said before. Started as the Romani and was not hugely expansionist until I was attacked by Koinon Hellonon who had become VERY strong. This led to a massive war which led to my control of all the Greek lands as far Olbia down to Byzantion and all of the main Greeek cities.
My knowledge of history is not on a par with most of the guys on this forum by the looks of things(thats why I expected to get the legions a lot earlier, and still haven't got them...), but I thought the Spartan Hoplites who I fought against would of had the Corinthian style helmet. I was kind of dissapointed, mainly because I think it looks class. Was this style of helmet outdated by the start of the game? Most of the hoplites in the game seem to have the Montefortino style helmet, which I presume was more practical?
But, if this is not the case I think it would be savage to have the classical hoplites and Spartans to have the Corinthian helmets in the next version.
Thanks.

Teleklos Archelaou

04-10-2007, 15:43

There are some corinthian helmets around still, but they aren't as common as the pilos. There is zero support on the mod team for giving the spartans, or any entire greek unit I'm aware of, the corinthian helm.

Sheep

04-11-2007, 02:49

I didn't know that. Cool. So one can back calculate an exact personal security number given that you know the size of the bodyguard and everything else there. I don't think there is any other way to see that number is there? (in game I mean).

Hunter

There are some bonuses for faction leaders and heirs, however for other characters it's all done by traits. So just go through the traits and count up all the personal security bonuses and penalties.

You can see how a -5 penalty from a single trait ("Conquering Hero") would nuke the bodyguard size (10 guys lost right there), especially if there are a few other penalty traits along with it. Kinda backwards considering you would think it would actually be easier for a famous general to attract men to fight with him. Currently, the more cities your general conquers, eventually the smaller his max. bodyguard size gets. His greater Influence would counteract it, but not totally, since you lose 2 bodyguards per negative point of personal security, but you have to gain THREE points of influence to get those 2 guys back.

I just don't see why Victor/Famous Victor/Conquering Hero should be negative traits at all, I guess. But I know it was in vanilla as well.

It is currently possible in the game to win battles that resemble WWI after the development of machine guns. It was never historically feasible to do this.

As a Baktrian player, I feel like I have an excuse to field lots of missile units, cause that's partly how "eastern" armies fought. I love the way 6 units of foot archers, 2 units of horse archers, and 2 units of slingers can just ERASE an enemy unit from the map. ~D

Sheep

04-11-2007, 02:52

(double posted without thinking, sorry)

Southern Hunter

04-11-2007, 06:46

As a Baktrian player, I feel like I have an excuse to field lots of missile units, cause that's partly how "eastern" armies fought. I love the way 6 units of foot archers, 2 units of horse archers, and 2 units of slingers can just ERASE an enemy unit from the map. ~D

Im playing Baktrian as well. For the maintenance of 1 unit of Elephants, I can instead have 20 units of 160 slingers. They erase whole armies before they even get to the line.

The Errant

04-12-2007, 09:03

"Historically, the Sabaean urban population was, besides Arab levies, the only other major component of their cavalry divisions. Hailing from a highly urbanized society, these men hailed from both small and large settlements, many helping to work royal land grants, a few riding horses provided by stables owned by their local High Priesthood, and some even enrolled in the forces of semi-independent city commanders. They were skilled veterans, their service during Sabaean campaigns leading them into the rugged mountains North of their well watered and fertile lands, fighting raiders and marauding tribes almost as a way of life. For this service, their pay was good and their lives away from campaign were fairly comfortable, but their strong association with the High Priesthood from engrained childhood perceptions to livelong economic and social relationships, leave their loyalty and dedication beyond reproach."

The above description is from the Sabaean Medium Cavalry. Yet the Sabaeans can't build even the most basic "grant of land" let alone royal or temple estates.

Is this an oversight? If not then I suggest the Sabaeans get some level estates to build. Could be royal since that's what it says in the description.

Artificer

04-12-2007, 14:37

Before I go on the crux of my post, I feel the need to throw out the obligatory "EXCELLENT MOD!" comment and give my thanks to all of the hard working team members who made Europa Barbarorum possible. That being said, on to the question!

Would it be possible for each of the Koinon Hellenon cities to recieve a hit to their loyalty when Makedon is destroyed as a faction? I feel that this would help to partially represent the dissent that would spread among the city states once the common foe of all true and righteous Hellenes is crushed.

Teleklos Archelaou

04-12-2007, 15:02

Artificer

04-12-2007, 17:36

That's logical Artificer, but I don't think we can do it. At least not from my standpoint dealing with building bonuses. Macedon manages to survive usually on Lesbos for very long periods of time also, so getting totally rid of them is usually pretty difficult.

Thanks for the reply, Teleklos. I wasn't really thinking of it from the AI angle, where the KH would certainly have trouble surviving the first few years, let alone making a successful foray across the sea. However, from the player's perspective this would open up all sorts of neat opportunities, role playing and otherwise.

Just imagine the possibilities! With the Makedonians pushed from Hellas proper, the KH finds itself in a rather precarious position. The old rivalries spring forth once more, bringing unrest both civil and military. Do the Hellenes push forth into the world, to reassert their power as a culture? Or does one overly ambitious Spartan or Athenian see the chance for their respective homes to claim hegenomy over all? Who knows?

The Glorious and Bountiful Rhodian Federation has a certain ring to it, don't you think? :2thumbsup:

Of course, this is all likely impossible and I've just wasted five minutes. Oh well. Sometimes dreaming about something can be just as fun as seeing it come to fruition. :beam:

gamegeek2

04-13-2007, 22:59

I don't get why Sauromatae generals speak Celtic; the sarmatians were an Iranian people. Pahlava and Qarthadastim generals speak Greek, too; they had their own languages. What gives? :juggle2:

Plus, the Hetairoi were supposedly more elite than the Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi; yet the Kataphraktoi can beat up on Hetairoi due to much higher defense. Since Hetairoi were so awesome, shouldn't they be better? they were THE BEST cavalry in their heyday. Hetairoi should :whip: the Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi

And this is what grivpanvar on gaesatae looks like :wall:
Gaesatae lack armor (though they have shields) but their lack of a good group should make them easy pickings. eqvites romani and crap like that can still turn and pwn them, but the best cavalry in the game should nearly run them overlike grass. plus, the kontos is no longer or more powerful than a xiston; kontos is, literally, "barge-pole" in Greek. OMG :furious3:

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

04-13-2007, 23:12

Redmeth

04-13-2007, 23:54

In my 2 campaigns played so far in 0.81a, the Casse AI after conquering all of Britain and the northern province of Ireland stays on the border with a full stack and just freezes there for many many years, is this because the AI thinks the garrison in there is too strong? There are some Milnaht but still this is not normal...

MoROmeTe

04-14-2007, 10:15

I was reading this article by General Sun at TWC and it seems to be he has a point in the idea that recruiting in a newly conquered region should drive unhappiness up, not down. Can this be implemented, maybe via scripts?

Pawl ap Hywel

04-14-2007, 21:59

Having small stone walls for the Celtic factions would help greatly with their defence. I keep getting my cities with a small armies crushed quickly by the Romans and the Greek factions.

mAIOR

04-14-2007, 22:22

I've found the massive slinger armies too... I found out that having really heavy infantry in the front helps a lot... I usually defeat them by never leting them hanging on my flanks... With the Romani after you get polybian princeps it's easy to counter such armies... Also, you'll need some good cav...

Cheers...

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

04-15-2007, 02:35

Having small stone walls for the Celtic factions would help greatly with their defence. I keep getting my cities with a small armies crushed quickly by the Romans and the Greek factions.
There are plans for a new reworked stonewall for the gauls. The current stone wall isn't right for the celts (giant, cut stone, pollished walls).

The Errant

04-19-2007, 08:31

The Goidilic Daisbard infantry would look good as the new Eleutheroi general. I think he would look equally good in the east, Africa, Arabia, Iberia and the Steppes.
Also the unit would make an excellent new Sabaean family member. Just change the cloak to a more uniform color (instead of the celtic checkered one) and you have an excellent new generic general model.

icydawgfish

04-23-2007, 03:41

What if you included historical battles for certain factions in the year they took place and have different effects based on who wins and loses (like RTR is doin in their next release)?

Teleklos Archelaou

04-23-2007, 03:59

I don't know that we know how to do that - having historical battles affect a campaign.

LorDBulA

04-23-2007, 07:33

I think he means creating battle in campaigne (by script).
I dupe we will do that, EB is more about representing history and not recreating it ( this wouldnt be very interesting game but a great movie ).

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

04-23-2007, 07:35

If you are talking about spawning things like Hannibal's army, than EB has decided against that. From 272BC onward, history is entirely different. (It is very hard to recreate the First Punic War in the same way that it happened historically. And if it didn't happen the way it did historically, there would be no Hannibal.)

I Am Herenow

04-23-2007, 14:23

OK, I got a few ideas:

1) Acquiring technology.

As part of diplomacy, you can offer to give another faction some unique technology of yours, or ask them to teach you one of theirs. E.g. Roma teaches Paved Roads Aedui in exchange for Taverns.

You could use this if you're some obsessed gotta-catch-'em-all guy, but I was thinking more: get the Barbarians to fill your coffers and do your road-building for you, after which you can hire some armies on the money you make and charge into Gaul, killing them anyway. Or buy Theatres from the Greeks to keep your people happy (I'm still talking about Roma here). Obviously, some factions would be very unwilling to sell some technologies (e.g. only an idiot would sell Large Stone Walls for $100, and if you're non-Roman, you'd have to offer something special to get them to teach you the technology). However, it might be quite sensible to teach people large ports or markets in exchange for a tribute, because:

a) The tribute would fill up your coffers
b) It would drain theirs
c) It would improve trade for both of you - good if they're your Allies, and it gives you extra income anyway
d) It means you can invade a better city (see note about roads, above)
Surely this sort of thing happened in history, and if implemented, the possibilities would be endless...

2) Population resettlement.

You will have the option of "recruiting" normal civilians fom your cities. They can be recruited in groups of thousand, and each thousand people takes 2-4 turns (your choice) to recruit (because they have to get ready, get belongings etc.). Once they're all ready, you can move them out of the city, where you'll get a big civilian "army". You can then move them to a different city, and again let them settle in. Again, 2-4 turns per 1000 to buy/build a new house etc. This would both slow/stop squalor in huge cities, and help tiny villages that take 20 years to advance, grow.

In order to stop this from becoming some super-own-everything-God-mode feature, the following drawbacks should be included:

a) Both the city that the citizens leave and the one they arrive in will suffer a short-term unrest boost, decreasing happiness (as the people are forced from their homes).

b) The original city will only lose its population when the citizens physically leave the city; while they are still getting ready, or sitting inside ready and waiting to move, they'll just be sitting there, creating squalor and unrest. Similarly, only when they become fully assimilated into the new city will its population increase; whilst assimilating, they will increase unrest. The unrest will last a few years after they leave/settle in.

c) Citizens will have various effects on the world around them:

i) The citizens will gradually become more and more irritated, the more time passes from when they were evicted to when they settle in. If their anger reaches a certain point, they/the city they're in will rebel and become a large Eleutheroi army, or a city with a large Eleutheroi garrisson (or both, if there are enough citizens and the rebelling city's garrisson spills over). These armies may or may not be aggressive, up to you guys, really.

ii) Citizens devastate the landscape and slow trade, even in their own regions (like enemy armies).

iii) If citizens are moved from a frontier region, their unhappiness at moving out may be decreased. If there are enough hostile armies near the settlement they move out of - i.e. the threat of a siege, and consequently their deaths, is high - they may, in fact leave the settlement happier than they were. Incidentally, perhaps add a few things that upset settlements' populations: sieges and the distance to the capital already exist as decreases to population happiness, but what about living on the frontier/next to the enemy (not necessarily distance) and/or the threat of a siege (possibly same thing)?

Citizens that are moved from a plague-ridden settlement will also be happy to leave (just make sure they aren't carrying the plague).

On a similar note, the more baths, temples etc. a city has, the smaller the lingering unrest will be once the citizens move in. Note, this is about happiness upon resettlement; the other two points are about happiness upon leaving. Note also that this is not the same as the assimilation period - i.e. the time it takes to add the citizens to the settlement's population (see 2) d)).

d) All cities have a cooldown period after assimilating 1 unit of citizens; the smaller the city, the larger the cooldown period. Also, very small settlements might take longer than 2 turns to assimilate 1 unit of citizens. This is because there are fewer resources and less manpower there to build new houses etc. Also, in terms of balance, it means that you can't skyrocket your town into a Huge City - indeed, dumping loads of citizens onto some random town will mean instant rebellion (and not the good, time-to-massacre-and-make-money type, because you'll get a huge Eleutheroi army too [see 2) c)]).

On a similar note, citizens take longer to get ready in small towns (because of less available supply to get them through the journey etc.), if you wanted to drain a small settlement of its population; and, as always, you can't have <400 people.

e) These groups of citizens can be interacted with by every type of character:

i) Allied

1) Another group of citizens: can merge with them, and they can split, like armies/fleets (1 unit=1000 citizens, therefore max. 20K per group).

2) Army: can merge, subduing anxiety/rebellious thoughts, and will help in battles (see 2) e) ii) 2)). Generals can either increase or decrease happiness, and increase or decrease rebellion, depending on traits.

3) Spy/Assassin: can merge, subduing anxiety and helping prevent enemy spies/assassins from succeeding with their missions. May involve killing off some citizens.

4) Diplomat: can merge, increasing happiness (by lying to them/calming them down).

ii) Enemy

1) Another group of citizens: either they fight or nothing happens, not sure (see 2) e) ii) 2)).

2) Army: can attack the citizens. I'm in several minds about this - either they automatically kill all/80%/50%/whatever of the citizens if they engage, or you get an auto-resolve only battle, or you get a normal battle, with every citizen unarmed and wielding no weapon; 1 attack, 0 charge, 1 defence and practically no morale. An auto-resolve only battle would probably be best because:

a) A normal battle would probably be quite laggy, especially with 20,000+ people!

b) 100% extermination all the time might be quite unfair as then you could get 1 Peasant (in theory) to wipe out 20,000 citizens. Even 1 unit of the most elite troop in the game would get killed eventually.

c) On the flip side, 50%/80%/whatever extermination all the time would also be unfair if you have a super-elite army which can only kill 500/1000 people (even though it would probably be able to slaughter all of them), just as 1 Peasant can.

3) Spy/Assassin: Spies obviously spy as recon for the enemy, and Assassins can kill citizens (probably in groups of 50 or 100 at a time to make it worthwhile - these assassinations spread fear and thus speed up the rebellion process).

4) Diplomat: Can try to bribe citizens to become Eleutheroi, and/or spread lies/rumours of the cruelty/military defeats/etc. of the citizens' faction, decreasing happiness. Possible option to try and convert some/all of the citizens to the Diplomat's faction...?

I've been toying with several ideas with regards to how to implement this. I first thought of a different unit/agent type, meaning that you will need a new bar to "store" citizens in (i.e. "(Fleet) Army (Construction) Agents Citizens".

However, I think it's much more feasible just to create a new Citizen unit, 1000 people per unit, as mentioned above, which goes in the Army slot. This will, first and foremost, make merging with soldiers simpler and battles will make more sense. I have several thoughts on battles involving citizens, if they are implemented into the game as a unit(see 2) e) ii) 2)):

1) Armies with Citizens can only auto-resolve battles.

2) Armies with Citizens can fight normal battles.

3) When presented with the screen at the start of a battle, an Army with Citizens can choose to either committ all its units (including the Citizens) and auto-resolve a battle; it can tick a checkbox that will "Omit Citizens from the battle", meaning they can stay behind whilst the normal soldiers fight either an auto-resolved or normal battle (thus lowering the army's size and strength but ensuring no citizens die).

If the army were to lose, what fate would befall the hiding Citizens is up to you (extermination, flight [i.e. they flee], rebellion; a combination, depending on the battle; the enemy gets to choose; whatever).

I'd say option 3 was best, as it avoids huge, laggy battles and generally just creating a Citizen unit is, in my opinion, the easiest way to add this to the game. I don't know what the limits of RTW's hardcoding are, but hopefully this will stay within its borders (if not, make Citizens 500-, 320- or whatever-strong).

Foot

04-23-2007, 15:31

Unfortunately, with regards your first idea, we cannot make any changes to the diplomacy engine, it is hardcoded.

With regards your second, much of the stuff you've written (concerning repopulation and the happiness and stuff) will not be able to be implemented properly, I don't think we have the necessary triggers in the script to check for the kind of things happening in game. We cannot creat new agent types, but certainly we can create a new unit type. However, the maximum size (on huge unit setting) is 240, in addition we have a cap on the maximum number of units avaliable, so using this precious resource is not something we want to do unless absolutely necessary.

Nice ideas, but RTW hardcodes are getting in the way.

Foot

Teleklos Archelaou

04-23-2007, 15:48

Indeed, they are nice ideas, and you took a while to properly think them out. They would be really great, but we just can't touch the hardcode, and every one of them I see would require being able to change something that we currently cannot. Pretty much anything that involves *adding* a new box or option or a new concept that doesn't entirely exist within current game mechanics is off limits to all RTW modders. Hope this doesn't disuade you from thinking about things that are possible within the game engine, or getting into modding the game yourself even.

I Am Herenow

04-23-2007, 15:53

Foot

04-23-2007, 16:04

And what would you have to do to bypass those hardcodes? Hack into the exe or something :P? Anyway, can't you just send an email to CA or pay them 20 bucks or something to send you the C++ or whatever code version for RTW/BI/Alexander? I mean, they're focused on M2TW now right, so what do they care what we do?

This is how to get noticed by CA in the wrong way. Firstly to buy an engine is excessively expensive, secondly we don't have the expertise to do anything with it, and thirdly MTW2 has only just come out and I imagine that RTW is still selling in small numbers.

Also, can you make citizens with 200 per unit then and transfer them that way?

As I said, we can do that, but we are short on unit space and in addition we could not do any of the other stuff you represented in your proposal connected with this idea.

However, if you can't move your citizens, can you make an option to exterminate/enslave the populace of a settlement you already own? This will avoid unnecessary intentional rebellion and retaking of cities.

As Teleklos said, we cannot make new options.

Foot

I Am Herenow

04-23-2007, 16:42

This is how to get noticed by CA in the wrong way.

What, they monitor these forums?

to buy an engine is excessively expensive

But is it for sale? If so: how much does it cost, where can I buy it, and what language is it in? Also, what software do I need to edit it (successfully)?

we don't have the expertise to do anything with it

OK, I'm confused. I'll admit right now that I know next to nothing about programming. I know a little bit of BASIC (my most complicated program created lottery tickets :laugh4:) and as for RTW, I can only do the simple typing-words-modification - i.e. unlimited ammo, unlimited camera etc. You guys, on the other hand, have practically created a new game here - or a new expansion pack, at least. Nowhere in those text files I managed to "mod" did I see any easy TRUE/FALSE option for new factions, units, or a new map; nowhere have I seen an option in RTWV's text files to make the soldiers speak their own language, or change the main menu screen. Therefore you guys must know something that I don't.

So what exactly is it you do to create EB? How do you make the new buildings, units, factions with their own crests etc.? And therefore what precisely is stopping you from getting to the "hardcode" and adding population transfer systems, an auto-exterminate button or any other wildly different ideas?

LorDBulA

04-23-2007, 17:21

But is it for sale? If so: how much does it cost, where can I buy it, and what language is it in?
Well if You have spare few hundreds thousands american dolars then I think You should contact CA directly.
It's most likely writen in C++.

So what exactly is it you do to create EB?
Well we redesigne RTW.
You can change a lot there. Actually only few percent of RTW cant be touched by us. Ofcouse there are some parts that could be changed but we dont know how to do it, reverse engineering is not an easy thing to do.
But also this few precent are most crucial and extremely difficult to create. Thats why it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to create it.

Tellos Athenaios

04-23-2007, 19:01

What, they monitor these forums?

It's not something I would like to call "monitoring", there are simply a couple of CA people who visit this forum as well. Simply put this forum is for everyone who's got something with TW series and wishes to talk about it, and this of course includes CA people. I believe that they actually use these and perhaps other forums to support the fan base - in this way that this is a sort of platform for fans (mostly modders) to get in touch with the people who wrote the game and exchange ideas/ opinions.

OK, I'm confused. I'll admit right now that I know next to nothing about programming. I know a little bit of BASIC (my most complicated program created lottery tickets :laugh4:) and as for RTW, I can only do the simple typing-words-modification - i.e. unlimited ammo, unlimited camera etc. You guys, on the other hand, have practically created a new game here - or a new expansion pack, at least. Nowhere in those text files I managed to "mod" did I see any easy TRUE/FALSE option for new factions, units, or a new map; nowhere have I seen an option in RTWV's text files to make the soldiers speak their own language, or change the main menu screen. Therefore you guys must know something that I don't.

Simply look at the amount of files that don't end with ".EXE" or ".DLL" - and look at what they are. There are sound packs that contain all the sound files used by Vanilla RTW, there are pictures that contain every faction icon used in game, there are text files that contain instructions for the engine where to find what files, or that work like a database (containing, you got that right already, all or part of the data used for a specific part of RTW - say the Stats, or the Campaign map). That's what we can edit. All those files that don't involve messing with the actual program itself. And the refore we better thank CA for putting so much of the data in plain, and relatively easy to understand, text formats, rather than keeping everything stored somewhere inside the program itself. (Which would lead to a faster RTW, btw.) Otherwise, EB would simply not have been there.

So what exactly is it you do to create EB? How do you make the new buildings, units, factions with their own crests etc.? And therefore what precisely is stopping you from getting to the "hardcode" and adding population transfer systems, an auto-exterminate button or any other wildly different ideas?

Well, ergo my remarks above, we edit all the files we can. Or about all of them. And we can't edit anything in the program/ hardcode itself (everything ending with ".DLL" or ".EXE") - or perhaps, some of us could do that but that would be highly illegal. (Read the user license agreement...) The program as a whole can't be edited by anyone, unless that person actually has the source code. Note that you have the executable (hence, the ".EXE"), which is altogether different from the source code, since it's basically a tiny version of the source containing a minimum of data to run properly - but containing so little data that you can't use it for editing your RTW engine. Simply: you have all the DLL's (libraries, containing pieces of code you wouldn't want to keep "copying" and "pasting" every single times, you'd rather call upon the library once in a while when you need it so your exe demands less resources.), and you've got a frame which makes everything work together the EXE, plus you've got the output ready to be assembled (the files we can edit). So, if we edit the unassembled bits of output one by one, the assembled output becomes completely different from anything Vanilla. But that's where it ends, we can't do anything about "input" (DLL's & EXE that determine where you have to click) or anything between "input" and "output" (that determine what exactly the game is going to do with your input) bar the few databases and the "lookup" files that contain data for the engine.

And breathe... Hope this clears thing up a bit.

I Am Herenow

04-23-2007, 19:14

OK, but do you create your own models/icons etc. in various programs (C, 3DSMax, whatever) or can you just edit a few text files in Notepad and hey presto get a new faction?

Edit: Oh, and two more things:

1) Why is rev-engeneering an exe any more illegal than changing a txt/xls/wav?

2) If I were to get my hands on the C code of RTW V/BI/Alex...

a) Would any of you be able to do anything with it?
b) Would editing that be illegal?

Tellos Athenaios

04-23-2007, 19:20

But is it for sale? If so: how much does it cost, where can I buy it, and what language is it in? Also, what software do I need to edit it (successfully)?

1) How much do you reckon will it cost to employ an entire company CA sized for about a year?
2) You should a) contact CA b) contact Activision (those who make the money, and they employed CA to make RTW for them) c) contact SEGA which now does about the same as the things that Activision did earlier (they took over or something like it, and they are the ones who financed M2TW.)
3) You would need a compiler (you may find some of that for free), and a tool capable of editing text files and exporting to whatever extension you want. In theory, Notepad should work. Unfortunately, just about every typing error you make will cause the game not to function properly anymore - if you're running your edited version. Luckily, you're now in the single most ideal position save for CA programmers to edit out just about all bugs which RTW still might have. ~;)
4) You may wish to know that lot's and lot's of code included with RTW probably wasn't even written by CA peopel themselves - they'd have used other programs (tools) to do the rather easy/ repetitive jobs for them. So you may want to acquire a couple of those as well. (Going to cost something, but, hey, if you are going to spend such amounts of money better do it properly, right? :grin: )
5) They, from CA, (perhaps in name of Activision) might have employed a couple of other companies to do some of the work for them, at least this was the case with some .MP3 tech stuff. You may want to contact those as well, perhaps they would either object to your purchase of the RTW source code, or they would be willing to help you out with a couple of important aspects of your very own RTW version - all in exchange for some money. But again, better to do things properly don't you think? You wouldn't want to appear in court, just because some company sued you for something you didn't know of at all in the first place, would you?

Tellos Athenaios

04-23-2007, 19:35

OK, but do you create your own models/icons etc. in various programs (C, 3DSMax, whatever) or can you just edit a few text files in Notepad and hey presto get a new faction?
Models, are as you will have noticed something completely different from factions. Just look at it this way: models they exist, pictures they do as well, but factions don't. Factions involve toying with a couple of .txt files - that's it. Faction icons means creating your own images, and you would have guessed that this is done by using a picture editing program - such as photoshop.

Edit: Oh, and two more things:

1) Why is rev-engeneering an exe any more illegal than changing a txt/xls/wav?

2) If I were to get my hands on the C code of RTW V/BI/Alex...

a) Would any of you be able to do anything with it?
b) Would editing that be illegal?

1) Because of what's written in the user license agreement. You can edit anything you like apart from the user license agreemtent (hey... :clown:) and the ".DLL's" and ".EXE" files. Very, very officially speaking each mod has to have a couple of lines of text in the opening screen: 1) there needs to be written that it (the mod) is not supported by CA (so that they can't be held responsible for whateve goes wrong), 2) there has to written an e-mail adress you can use to contact the creator(s) of the mod to ask for help etc.

2a) There are probably quite a few who would be, yes. I'm not one of them, but I guess that people like Vercingetorix, or LorDBula would. Better to let them respond for themselves, perhaps.
2b) Not really, especially not if you were to use it yourself only, and not to release it to public. But that all depends on what you would agree to with CA if you bought it. You could buy the license to have it and use it, but perhaps you could also buy the license to have it, use it, edit it (without damaging CA's interests in any way that may be possible...) , and redistribute it (sell it, give it away for free, lend it... whatever). Of course, depending on what type of license you want to have the price is going up as well.

I Am Herenow

04-23-2007, 20:04

OK, thanks for all your help

Tellos Athenaios

04-23-2007, 20:16

You're welcome.

Fondor_Yards

04-24-2007, 06:33

I was thinking, shouldn't Colonys increase trade? After all, one of their main purpose of being made was to increase trade with the mother city.

temenid

04-24-2007, 17:54

I'd like to share a couple of "historicity" modifications that I made to my install:

1. It was remarked upon that Parthians charged knee-to-knee. I modified the unit spacing for grivpanvar & the other cataphracts to be 1.5 metres (like the Saka lancers). I haven't yet modified the default formation, but I will.

2. The purchase of 500 elephants from Chandragupta just isn't the same as conquering India and building a 4th level MIC. So I made standard Indian elephants available as (rare) mercs in Gandhara, Sattagydia, Sind, Baktria and Arachosia. It's nice, because now elephants are turning up in battles.

3. Paved roads for the Persian royal road. I'm considering even putting highways in.

I'm also considering giving the Parthians horse-archers some extra ammo, since they (at least sometimes) used camels in battle to replenish their stocks. This might be better as a later version of the shivatir.

Also, I think I should have posted this here (sorry): https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=84046

Southern Hunter

04-25-2007, 13:52

Teleklos Archelaou

04-25-2007, 14:21

We won't be providing the highest possible upgrade for every road in those provinces (a lot of them) that the Persian Royal Road runs through. If we could make one road in them paved, we would do it probably, but since all roads in the province are upgraded, we felt the other bonuses were more appropriate.

I know the formation of those cataphracts was looked at but I don't know what the result was.

Krusader

04-25-2007, 14:53

2. The purchase of 500 elephants from Chandragupta just isn't the same as conquering India and building a 4th level MIC. So I made standard Indian elephants available as (rare) mercs in Gandhara, Sattagydia, Sind, Baktria and Arachosia. It's nice, because now elephants are turning up in battles.

Indian Elephants will be available for the Seleukids in Syria in next build. In fact new elephant models should be available in next build too.

Thaatu

04-25-2007, 19:14

Indian Elephants will be available for the Seleukids in Syria in next build. In fact new elephant models should be available in next build too.
:birthday2:

swhunter

04-26-2007, 07:30

Will the skys change ?
different types of clouds ? redskys darkclouds ect.? :idea2:

mAIOR

04-26-2007, 09:25

I Am Herenow

04-26-2007, 19:54

Also, after seing the Celtic-Epirote aliance, isn't it possible (via script) to emulate Roman, AS, etc civil wars? what I mean is, take Spartacus, when we had certain conditions met, huge rebel armies could spawn or some towns rebel to the rebels (redundant? o0)... It'd just give more realism to an already great mod.

Hmm, sounds good to me :)

Also, as you're talking about rebels, don't you mean Eleutheroi? Epirote=Greece (1 of them).

As for my suggestion: add all the buildings to the building browser (e.g. barracks, for Romani at least, aren't on there and it doesn't list the govt. types: generally confusing to see where your town can head :dizzy2:)

Ludens

04-26-2007, 20:27

As for my suggestion: add all the buildings to the building browser (e.g. barracks, for Romani at least, aren't on there and it doesn't list the govt. types: generally confusing to see where your town can head :dizzy2:)
Unfortunatly, there is no way to do that. The building browser creates a building tree by looking at the EDB file, but it gets confused by the "not" command. The EB team have extensively used this command for their governement system.

I Am Herenow

04-28-2007, 17:57

Unfortunatly, there is no way to do that. The building browser creates a building tree by looking at the EDB file, but it gets confused by the "not" command. The EB team have extensively used this command for their governement system.

I'm afraid I don't follow :S
What do you mean by NOT? Why not just list all possible non-unique buildings and have the ones that aren't available greyed out? I suppose you could expand some of the descriptions (e.g. for ports they EITHER cost 3500 OR 35,000 Mnai, depending on location [for Romani on Hard, which is what I'm playing]).

Also, a few more things:

Pirate blockades and blockading rebels (Eleutheroi) currently doesn't make sense. I understand that pirates would want to sink ships to grab some loot for themselves, hence they (unlike land-based rebel armies) are aggressive. However, why they would want to blockade a port remains a mystery to me, as reducing some random faction's naval trade doesn't help them in any way. Also, there is currently no point blockading rebel docks as they don't do anything anyway (i.e. are non-aggressive) and money doesn't seem to help them; they'll only train a few ships and kill you eventually, and it ties up your ships and wastes money for you.

Therefore, I propose that blockades should not only choke a rival's economy, but be beneficial to your own. I.e. the blockading ships will stop trading ships by coming in and out by looting and sinking any ships that try to enter/exit the city (like merchants who didn't know about the blockade or something). This will mean a steady drip of money into your economy (just list it as Other if you can't make a new income category) as well as hurting an enemy's.

Therefore:

If a fleet blockades a port large enough, it can pay for itself.

Blockading Eleutheroi will make sense, as you get income from it and don't anger any nations.

Pirate ships can be assigned to Eleutheroi cities which exist on land (preferably ones with naval ports ;)) and bring income to those cities/that city (meaning more troops, maybe?).

Also, I think that you shouldn't be able to build warships whilst blockaded (as you can't recruit/build/repair/retrain whilst besegied), but the enemy fleet will gradually lose units as merchant ships manage to overcome one of their fleet every once in a while.

Um...any good?

Foot

04-28-2007, 18:06

I'm afraid I don't follow :S
What do you mean by NOT? Why not just list all possible non-unique buildings and have the ones that aren't available greyed out? I suppose you could expand some of the descriptions (e.g. for ports they EITHER cost 3500 OR 35,000 Mnai, depending on location [for Romani on Hard, which is what I'm playing]).

The building browser is created automatically from the text file export_descr_buildings. We have no control how the game turns the edb code into the building browser. The building browser does not understand the "not" logic function in the edb code and so those buildings with it in (which are a lot) do not appear in the building browser.

Also, a few more things:

Pirate blockades and blockading rebels (Eleutheroi) currently doesn't make sense. I understand that pirates would want to sink ships to grab some loot for themselves, hence they (unlike land-based rebel armies) are aggressive. However, why they would want to blockade a port remains a mystery to me, as reducing some random faction's naval trade doesn't help them in any way. Also, there is currently no point blockading rebel docks as they don't do anything anyway (i.e. are non-aggressive) and money doesn't seem to help them; they'll only train a few ships and kill you eventually, and it ties up your ships and wastes money for you.

Therefore, I propose that blockades should not only choke a rival's economy, but be beneficial to your own. I.e. the blockading ships will stop trading ships by coming in and out by looting and sinking any ships that try to enter/exit the city (like merchants who didn't know about the blockade or something). This will mean a steady drip of money into your economy (just list it as Other if you can't make a new income category) as well as hurting an enemy's.

Therefore:

If a fleet blockades a port large enough, it can pay for itself.

Blockading Eleutheroi will make sense, as you get income from it and don't anger any nations.

Pirate ships can be assigned to Eleutheroi cities which exist on land (preferably ones with naval ports ;)) and bring income to those cities/that city (meaning more troops, maybe?).

Also, I think that you shouldn't be able to build warships whilst blockaded (as you can't recruit/build/repair/retrain whilst besegied), but the enemy fleet will gradually lose units as merchant ships manage to overcome one of their fleet every once in a while.

Um...any good?

The part about getting the money might be possible, but I doubt it would work very well. The rest is impossible. Eleutheroi are all one big faction, it doesn't make any sense to give a particular city a bonus as it all goes into a big pot anyway (not that it would be possible of course). We cannot change the recruitment if a port is beseiged, nor can we make the beseiging ships lose ships occasionally.

Basically you have so many ideas, but no technical know-how whatsoever. Perhaps you might want to invest a little time in looking into RTW modding, it would help you a lot with coming up with ideas.

Foot

Tellos Athenaios

04-28-2007, 22:42

Pirate blockades and blockading rebels (Eleutheroi) currently doesn't make sense. I understand that pirates would want to sink ships to grab some loot for themselves, hence they (unlike land-based rebel armies) are aggressive. However, why they would want to blockade a port remains a mystery to me, as reducing some random faction's naval trade doesn't help them in any way. Also, there is currently no point blockading rebel docks as they don't do anything anyway (i.e. are non-aggressive) and money doesn't seem to help them; they'll only train a few ships and kill you eventually, and it ties up your ships and wastes money for you.

Therefore, I propose that blockades should not only choke a rival's economy, but be beneficial to your own. I.e. the blockading ships will stop trading ships by coming in and out by looting and sinking any ships that try to enter/exit the city (like merchants who didn't know about the blockade or something). This will mean a steady drip of money into your economy (just list it as Other if you can't make a new income category) as well as hurting an enemy's.

Therefore:

If a fleet blockades a port large enough, it can pay for itself.

Blockading Eleutheroi will make sense, as you get income from it and don't anger any nations.

Pirate ships can be assigned to Eleutheroi cities which exist on land (preferably ones with naval ports ;)) and bring income to those cities/that city (meaning more troops, maybe?).

Also, I think that you shouldn't be able to build warships whilst blockaded (as you can't recruit/build/repair/retrain whilst besegied), but the enemy fleet will gradually lose units as merchant ships manage to overcome one of their fleet every once in a while.

Um...any good?

Pirate Spawning, Pirate behaviour (blockading or not etc.) -> Hardcoded stuff. Probably meant to increase game difficulty, and to circumvent more complex ways of simulating the effects of piracy. Eg. the loss of tax income.
Testing for the Condition: "Port blockaded" -> I'm no coder, but it appears to me that there's no such condition, or set of conditions which can be turned into RTW script. Neither did/ does the engine care for it anyway.
Therefore: extracting money from blockades -> Impossible as well.

It's a pity, because out of gameplay perspective your suggestions cleary had some real merit - but unfortunately, they are all impossible to realise.

I Am Herenow

04-29-2007, 08:26

The part about getting the money might be possible... The rest is impossible.
...
Basically you have so many ideas, but no technical know-how whatsoever.

OK, fine, everything's impossible. Do what you want - I give up.

Foot

04-29-2007, 11:56

OK, fine, everything's impossible. Do what you want - I give up.

You make it sound like I'm to blame. I'm not.

Foot

Ceasar14

04-29-2007, 23:39

Foot

04-29-2007, 23:53

Alright I have a couple of things.

1) Can you make the reforms for the Romans a little less complicated. It tends to ruin the fun of a game when you're trying to get new units and you have a list of things you have to do before.

2) Since you have Augustus Reforms historically corect you must include Lorica Segmentata. When Augustus reformed the army he had about 60 legions he disbanded about half and the others he retained and gave the Lorica Segmentata.

3)And something really has to be done about AI expansion by like 240 b.c. The Seleucid empire almost controls everything in the east.

1) We won't be making the reforms less complicated, though if we could we would like to add even more conditions. I would recommend to stop playing EB like a game and roleplay a bit more. When it becomes fustrating waiting for new units, you've stopped playing EB and started playing a run-of-the-mill RTS.

2) We have consistently said that we will not be adding lorica segmentata, as it only came into full use at the very end of our timeframe. It is possible that it may appear in small quantities in EB2, but who knows!

3) There are some fans looking at ways to control the runaway empires such as the Seleucids, and there was a problem with the eleutheroi in 0.81a where they were not getting enough money from the script. Don't worry, we don't spend all day sipping pina coladas in the tropics, some of us do work sometimes! :beam:

Foot

Geoffrey S

04-30-2007, 00:32

OK, fine, everything's impossible. Do what you want - I give up.
You might want to be more reasonable about this. There are very clear limits as to what it is possible to mod in Rome, even to a non-modder like myself. While your ideas have merit of their own they unfortunately must also be condemned to the same category as unreasonable suggestions as to adding dozens more factions and including Asia, albeit to a lesser degree; propositions ultimately impossible to achieve due to limitations in the engine.

It's not a matter of being awkward, simply a matter of knowing what can be achieved and what can't. A basic knowledge of those matters makes it easier for EB members to find good ideas, and prevents you from writing up good ideas that are impossible to implement and can't really receive anything more than a curt "that isn't possible/is hardcoded".

Thaatu

04-30-2007, 16:43

Basically you have so many ideas, but no technical know-how whatsoever.
He might have taken this as an insult. It works both ways, you know...

Foot

04-30-2007, 17:25

He might have taken this as an insult. It works both ways, you know...

Yeh I guess he could have, though from his posts I see it simply as a statement of fact; he has lots of ideas and he doesn't know much about RTW modding.

Herenow, it wasn't meant as an insult, but rather a suggestion that your creative mind (and it truly is creative!) would be put to good use if you picked up a few tid-bits of knowledge on RTW modding.

Foot

blacksnail

04-30-2007, 21:52

Agreed. IAH, you should see all the wacky proposals I came up with prior to digging in to modding the RTW engine. There are some very specific boundaries imposed by the game and we have a tiny amount of leeway, so suggestions outside of those boundaries we have to reject outright as impossible. Please do not get discouraged and take it personally!

pockettank

05-01-2007, 01:36

whats the faction limit in EB2 cuz i would want to see the Yeuzhi back into it cuz i didnt play the origanal EB so i dont know what they were like and on all my games baktria always conquers all of India the steppes and selucia never does anythin about it cuz there to busy with the Ptolemaioi that Baktria goes unchecked cuz Saka is always bankrupt and pahlava/sauromatae slaughter each other leaving them with no armies so Baktria needs some extra help being checked also Saba needs a nation to compete against cuz ussaly selucia ignores them 2 and they sit back doing nothing with no one to fight.. also i saw them take the Sahara one time o.o so they deffinitly had free time lol

Cybvep

05-03-2007, 18:53

A small question: Will you add new formations in the next version? And maybe you should limit certain formations for certain factions, because it's possible now (1.3 patch added such option).

Kepper

05-05-2007, 21:34

Tellos Athenaios

05-05-2007, 22:21

Has EB here tried to make:

Counter faction (or Secondary faction)
This is THE main feature of 7.0 (after the map, the new scripts and BI). I'd think most people here haven't heard of the "unlimited faction" concept. It's rather simple. You have 19 base factions (18 in our case), and batch files, that change the text files, and turn the empty slot in whatever faction we please. Due to our campaign system in 7.0 (which is explained below), we will change this slot to a faction that had a significant impact in the base faction.

Some rebel city's have there own banner, can i make the same it the faction
more faction more fun

About RTR, eh? ~;) The idea of "unlimitted" factions certainly is appealing. It has a couple of consequences, though. One, you'd need to run batch files. Relatively minor thing, you'd say at first, but the next thing is: one batch file only changes so much. And most of RTR 7.0 counterfactions are either already covered by EB (Arverni, Saka) or just 'a bunch of rebels' (Seleukid nobles, Egyptian uprisings, Carthage rebels etc.) which is just not historically accurate. Granted, there were persian nobles who revolted etc. etc. But they did not operate as a faction, not even as an alliance. (With perhaps a few exceptions.)

And another thing: playing as Romans your counterfaction will be the Senate & Roman rebels -> means no Arveni. And that's not a matter of "choosing the right faction as a counterfaction" - it's simply inevitable: you can only do so much by batch files without significant effects to the over all covering of factions & area's. And this means that the idea of "unlimitted" factions is somewhate misleading: RTR aims for 19 times 19 and some of them won't be playable at all.

Back to your original question: no, EB is not currently actively working on adding such a system, but some members are eagerly awaiting the RTR 7.0 release to see how it all works out.

Kepper

05-06-2007, 15:21

Foot

05-06-2007, 15:30

It option of Secondary faction can´t you create some tip scripts for the rebellion of the kingdom of Baktria. The ill star under the control of Arche Seleukeia but rebel to a full faction after some date like 250

EB has always maintained that every faction should be playable from the start, otherwise what would be the point. Thus we have Baktria a seperate faction from 272, so that people can get to play this most important of factions. In other words, no we will not have emerging factions.

Can the nomad faction have the option Horde after losing there last town.

I believe this is a feature in Barbarian Invasion, and not avaliable in RTW. As EB is made for RTW not BI, we will not be including this feature.

Foot

Al-Masri

05-06-2007, 15:55

Is Baktria a protectorate of the Arche when the game starts or just an ally. Ive never played them so I have no idea, but since they were a satrap till 250 maybe a being a protectorate would be a good fit.

Spoofa

05-06-2007, 16:21

Foot

05-06-2007, 17:25

They are an ally.

Foot

I Am Herenow

05-06-2007, 19:29

Michaelis

05-06-2007, 22:32

My initial criticisms after maybe 60 hours of gameplay:

1. Too many character traits. They become meaningless.

2. Too many population growth and happiness boni; not enough law & order boni. No modelling of diseases & epidemics - couple of events needed there. Maybe famine too, if player fails to buiuld granaries? Anyway, there should be situations resulting in population loss or negative growth, as it's sometimes called.

3. Cavalry combat stats are waaaay out of line. At first, I thought they were typos. The charge bonus shouldn't be bigger than 2x melee attack value. The melee attack values should be sharply revised upward, roughly matching those of corresponding (light and heavy) infantry. Please keep in mind that cavalry could and did fight on foot, and that a few episodes from the Hundred Years' War do not mean a heavily armoured cavalryman was useless when not charging/dismounted.

Also, it would be nicer for gameplay (though ahistorical) if the player could build whatever type of government they wanted whenever they wanted, although of course setting up a Type 1 government far, far, away would have to be made much more difficult. One way to achieve this would be to create an administrative unit - very expensive, and very slow (would be realistic too - after all, an administration consists primarily of people, not buildings). Upon arriving in the chosen town, the unit would be disbanded, and the option to build an appopriate structure would be enabled. Till that time, the only government type available would be a provisional military government, which would not allow anything apart from building the most basic units and structures. Naturally, this would be viable as an option for human players only - the AI cheats now anyway.

Off to revise cavalry stats and play some more. Great mod!

EDIT: Hmmm, just had a look at cavalry unit stats and they look ok - diff. numbers from those quoted in in-game descriptions. I'm playing as the Sweboz, so only started looking at cavalry closely after a long while.

Re diseases: vanilla RTW had the plague, rather neatly done too - units became infected, and could in turn infect towns if moved inside. Is it gone in EB?

EDIT EDIT: Uh, looked in the wrong Data folder... Sure enough, the majority of cavalry has HALF the melee attack of most archers, to give an example (and some European cavalry has a stronger ranged attack than melee attack). From what I know, in EB times an archer had a small club or big knife or small axe as a melee weapon. I do think this is wrong, but maybe it works in terms of gameplay. Found plague in another folder, and am really surprised not to have had it occuring in ca 80 turns - I only played three campaigns in vanilla RTW, but I had it occurring repeatedly in every campaign.

Teleklos Archelaou

05-06-2007, 23:12

I know that we don't really have control over those events like disease and famine, but I do know that pop growth bonuses are supposed to be reduced at some point. We'd love to make famines happen, but the game just doesn't allow for negative bonuses (to be truly negative that is - they can reduce you back to "0", but no further).

I don't think there is a way to detect the disbanding of a certain type of unit in a city. I just don't think the game can sense that sort of thing. We have thought about making an expanded type1 govt available in further regions, but we aren't sure about it yet and how we would make it work. It is something we've thought about doing though.

I'll leave stats talk to the stats guys. But I will say that they have put hundreds and hundreds of hours into testing the stats we have now, and while there are problems with individual units likely still, the method for awarding points for armor and charges is quite complex and gives a pretty realistic result in the team members' view.

Glad you are enjoying things! I'll put some more thought into the possibilities of those expanded type1's though - blacksnail's been thinking about it I know, but we still aren't sure.

Southern Hunter

05-07-2007, 02:07

Spoofa

05-07-2007, 02:18

Regarding cavalry, my view is that they have armor ratings that are too high. It is almost impossible for some troops to hit them, when in fact, they are riding on unarmoured horses and do not have shields or armour equivalent to a good infantry man.

Hetaroi should not be plowing into enemys and then staying there to chew them up. Bogged down cavalry should be more vulnerable than that.

I think they are fine the way they are.

1. RTW does not allow for horsemen to be unhorsed but still able to fight on foot, somthing that happened.

2. The Hetaroi are clad in mail and a muscled cuirass, which, i would find to be extremely high quality protection, allowing them to take a few hits and still be alive to say the least.

3. Even hetaroi seem to take considerable casualties if i leave them to melee with anything stronger then peltastai, so I'm not quite sure what you speak of when you say "there to chew them up" since i have never experienced them chewing anybody up. :laugh4:

Southern Hunter

05-07-2007, 10:08

I think they are fine the way they are.

1. RTW does not allow for horsemen to be unhorsed but still able to fight on foot, somthing that happened.

2. The Hetaroi are clad in mail and a muscled cuirass, which, i would find to be extremely high quality protection, allowing them to take a few hits and still be alive to say the least.

3. Even hetaroi seem to take considerable casualties if i leave them to melee with anything stronger then peltastai, so I'm not quite sure what you speak of when you say "there to chew them up" since i have never experienced them chewing anybody up. :laugh4:

The horses have no armour and would be easily wounded / killed in an all-in melee against formed troops. And yet, because of high armor values, the infantry do no damage at all on occasions. If a significant number of men become unhorsed, the unit would cease to operate as a significant military formation.

When I play with them they hit the rear/ flanks of all kinds of HI and just sit there chewing through them. Sometimes I pull them out and re-charge, because they do most damage during the charge phase.

Hetaroi were potent because of Elan, Shock, Maneuvrability, NOT because they had somehow got heaps of armor on them.

Kepper

05-07-2007, 11:07

Can you the Somatophylakes Strategou (Baktrian Early Bodyguard) able to use bows.
Or ill the Baktrian later Bodyguard have bows it some tip of reform

Quilts

05-07-2007, 12:35

The horses have no armour and would be easily wounded / killed in an all-in melee against formed troops. And yet, because of high armor values, the infantry do no damage at all on occasions. If a significant number of men become unhorsed, the unit would cease to operate as a significant military formation.

When I play with them they hit the rear/ flanks of all kinds of HI and just sit there chewing through them. Sometimes I pull them out and re-charge, because they do most damage during the charge phase.

Hetaroi were potent because of Elan, Shock, Maneuvrability, NOT because they had somehow got heaps of armor on them.
Agree with MastaSpoofa on this one, but perhaps not for the same reasons.

I posted in another thread about cavalry and how they only do two things in the game- Skirmish and Close Combat. There's no ability to charge, and evade, if the enemy don't break. The charge has to press home due to the game mechanics.

MOST cavalry in this era (including the heavies) just did not do this ie- press home charges against foot of they didn't break before contact.

The only way to model this in the game is to reduce charge values, increase their defence values and give them the 'frighten foot' ability. Then it requires a level of 'imagination' to visualise those cavalry, who in the game are fighting tooth and nail against your foot, are in actuality loitering very close by to threaten the foot, issueing challenges, launching charges and breaking off before contact, in an effort to break the foots morale, or at least lower it sufficiently so that when enemy foot then engage them to their front they decide their best option is to flee.

Anyways, that's my thoughts on the matter.

Cheers,

Quilts

P.S. Will try your mod soon I hope.....just need to find time.

I Am Herenow

05-07-2007, 13:15

Any thoughts on my suggestion (about Auguri and Medici)?

mAIOR

05-07-2007, 15:56

Regarding Cavalry, all I say is they gave them too little weight. I edited that myself (to more realistic levels altough not totally realistic as that would make units go flying like 200 meters in the air) and now, they are much better. And regarding hetairoi, I never faced what you tell. WHat dificulty are you plying. If they stop in melee, they get ravaged by infantry. Also, the high armor values represent the total armor as it is impossoble to separate the armor of the rider from the horse. And the stats of cavalry (the attack) is to represent the lack of ability of your cavalry to stay in melee for too long (with only 4 atack there aren't much units you can damage no?)...

Cheers...

Foot

05-07-2007, 16:00

In my experience, elite cavalry will generally be taken down by inferior spearmen. Skirmishers will generally get eaten, but they usually flee quite early. Generally, I find that keeping cavalry in melee with an unengaged unit is a really quick way of not having cavalry any more.

Foot

Tellos Athenaios

05-07-2007, 16:17

Yep, Medium Battle Difficulty is a Cavalry In Melee killer. :yes:

That is, as long as you're not using tank equivalents. But Hetairoi BG (AS, Ptolemies & Maks) can get eaten alive by Pantodapoi.

blacksnail

05-07-2007, 19:02

Shouldn't Auguri buildings give +ve unit morale? Because the soldiers will be more keen to fight knowing the eagles and sheep livers are on their side, guaranteeing them victory.

On a similar note, maybe Medici/hostpitals should increase the chances of generals in the settlement getting doctor (or similar) ancillaries/+ve HP stats?
I can't speak to the first idea - I'm not a historian by any means - but as for the second, that's pretty cool. I'm not very familiar with the ancillary/trait system but if it isn't in there already, we can run it by the trait folks. As for the HP thing, I know that giving HPs to generals is generally something we avoid - but we'll check it out and see what can be done.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Thaatu

05-07-2007, 19:51

Fondor_Yards

05-07-2007, 21:09

On a similar note, maybe Medici/hostpitals should increase the chances of generals in the settlement getting doctor (or similar) ancillaries/+ve HP stats?

They do help you get doctors, and all of the various healer/druid/medicine traits. Dunno about HP bonuses.

I Am Herenow

05-07-2007, 21:26

I'd imagine they were sometimes used as a propaganda tool.

Yeah, exactly, I mean, think about it:

Generals always put spin on whatever omens they get before a battle in their pre-battle speeches (in-game) to make victory seem imminent and to make the soldiers fight harder.

Probably only a few people other than the Auguri knew about the art of inspecting livers - infantry grunts would especially be unaware of its intricacies, I should imagine - so it would be pretty easy to lie to them. And no-one would really be able to prove otherwise, since we (in 2007) all know it's a load of rubbish.

No-one in their right mind (in actual Roman times or in the game) would spend money on something that gave them worse troops.

The Auguri could tell the troops the exact day to fight on (theoretically, I mean), as each battle could happen on any day in a 3-month period. This would make them feel more confident.

All this means: more confident troops! :beam:

Southern Hunter

05-08-2007, 01:30

There's no ability to charge, and evade, if the enemy don't break. The charge has to press home due to the game mechanics.

MOST cavalry in this era (including the heavies) just did not do this ie- press home charges against foot of they didn't break before contact.

The only way to model this in the game is to reduce charge values, increase their defence values and give them the 'frighten foot' ability. Then it requires a level of 'imagination' to visualise those cavalry, who in the game are fighting tooth and nail against your foot, are in actuality loitering very close by to threaten the foot, issueing challenges, launching charges and breaking off before contact, in an effort to break the foots morale, or at least lower it sufficiently so that when enemy foot then engage them to their front they decide their best option is to flee.

What a fascinating idea!

Worth pursuing at some point, since I agree with you that cavalry charges right now do not work as they should. One has to take into account how the AI will handle the altered combat model.

Quilts

05-08-2007, 12:19

What a fascinating idea!

Worth pursuing at some point, since I agree with you that cavalry charges right now do not work as they should. One has to take into account how the AI will handle the altered combat model.
Wish I could take credit for it. All I've done is extrapolate what I'm forced to do as a historical (not to be confused with Warhammer in any version or form) miniatures table-top wargamer, into the computer game world.

If the units are engaged on the screen then you would need to 'imagine' they were 'actively engaged'. This would involve some or all (at the same time) of-
- Charges/Counter charges, but very little actual face to face contact. The cavalry have the manouverability and realise they will lose their advantage by fighting 'statically' against a solid infantry formation.
- Challenges/Challenges answered, with limited casualties to both sides but probably more to the infantry, for manouverability reasons, who occasionally find they get isolated from the main body of troops.
- Exchanges of missile weapons. Probably favouring the cavalry again, as they are moving at speed (harder to hit) 'firing' at a large and largely stationary mass of troops. Even an Equites would throw his cavalry spear if a target was just too tempting. Afterall, he still has a sword.
- Threatening manouevering by the cavalry and counter-manouevering by the infantry to not leave themselves vulnerable.
- Lots of other possibilites.

If the units are not actually engaged (perhaps the cavalry withdrew rom combat) then the cavalry would be doing what they appear to be doing, or manouevering threateningly.....or maybe just sitting out of reach resting :beam:

This sort of model requires the cavalry to 'last' when the units are actually engaged on the screen, therefore they need a high defense. Not because their tanks, but because they avoid the need to be tanks by their increased manouverability.

In the same light, the charge bonus has to be virtually done away with. It's 'game effect' is really a bit of a small scale action Medieval era style 'attribute' anyway (ooh, that will upset a few people.....sorry).

Again, in the same light, the infantry shouldn't drop like flies either, so the actual cavalry attack factor needs to be relative to the norm.

Ancient cavalry's main battlefield effect was exploiting flanks (nobody likes being surrounded), denying flanks, and pursueing a routed enemy. At teh moment they are used as mounted formation battering rams :thumbsdown:

Anyways, said enough. If you want to discuss further feel free to PM me.

Cheers,

Quilts

Redmeth

05-09-2007, 21:44

A few thoughts from my ongoing Sauromatae campaign regarding areas of recruitment.
The Sarmatian foot-archers can only be recruited in my starting provinces in pastoralism as far as I can tell, although the Scythian ones are available in more provinces under pastoralism, not completely sure about the Scythians though but the things is I'm playing Sarmatians and they should be recruitable in my settled areas along with the Sarmatian spearmen who seem to be available in more places.
The High King Court and the other Courts who provide you with noble cavalry only do so in my starting provinces and one or two neigbouring ones perhaps expanding their area of recruitment to all the Gavas and Gelonus and Tanais would be a good idea.
Also I just took over the Saka lands and in Sulek ,Xiyu and Bin-Kath I can recruit only Roxolanii nobles from their High-King courts and some lancers and the standard 3 Has from the Camps (Sarmatian, Aorsi and Roxolanii non-nobles) perhaps making it possible to recruit some Saka specific troops would give more variety to the steppe-flavor.
And most other nomadic factions seem to always go for nomadism the drawback was when I took over the Parthian and Saka steppe lands to the east (Gava-Matzakata, Gava-Alanna and Gava-Saka and Xiyu) I only had cavalry armies and no option to recruit some cheap troops to garrison I had to ferry them from the Hai heartland to the north and then east (it's a really long walk).
Only now in 200 BC after taking Baktra I can supply them better with cheap skirmishers to garrison.
Great job you guys I actually enjoy very much playing and also the feeling that my opinion and the other people's who play and post are at least being read and maybe taken into consideration. :2thumbsup:

QwertyMIDX

05-13-2007, 01:35

3. Cavalry combat stats are waaaay out of line. At first, I thought they were typos. The charge bonus shouldn't be bigger than 2x melee attack value. The melee attack values should be sharply revised upward, roughly matching those of corresponding (light and heavy) infantry. Please keep in mind that cavalry could and did fight on foot, and that a few episodes from the Hundred Years' War do not mean a heavily armoured cavalryman was useless when not charging/dismounted.

Just to clear this up. Cavalry in general have two attack values, one for their lance/spear and one for their sidearm. The lance/spear has a low attack, but high charge, very high lethality, and ap. The sidearm generally has the same stats as comparable (same quality with same weapon) infantry. Fighting in close quarters with a huge lance isn't effective, its a shock weapon for a charge. Hence, high charge values with a low attack. If you want to dig in with your cavalry (probably not a good idea) use their sidearm, they'll perform much better in melee.

swhunter

05-14-2007, 07:39

Geoffrey S

05-14-2007, 09:22

While that would be interesting, the goal is to stick to RTWs timeframe; also, expanding the time played would be problematic considering the limited amount of units EB can add. And that considering that most players seem to finish a lot earlier than 9 ad makes an even longer game somewhat pointless.

Besides, there weren't huge areas added after EBs end, and those peoples the Romans did come into conflict with for a large part couldn't be represented by the current factions.

Redmeth

05-14-2007, 14:19

plus different styles of roman armour later.
thanks

I sense another lorica segmentata debate coming... :clown:

Foot

05-14-2007, 14:26

Hi will you have any changes in the future
of adding more time? And why not?
after 70 a.d. Romes empire expanded alot after this time.
With the idea of haveing the jewish upraieing in those times.
plus different styles of roman armour later.
thanks

For the official answer: No, there are no plans to continue EB2 past our current end date. We have always planned to represent history to the best of our knowledge and within the limits of the RTW (and soon, the MTW2) engine. The fact that Rome expanded a lot after our end date would only matter were we a mod that focused on Rome and the Roman Empire. As we do not there is no good reason to do so.

I hope you find this answer helpful.

Foot

The Wicked

05-14-2007, 17:52

Foot

05-14-2007, 18:27

Well guys you MUST change the defence points that every soldier takes from armour and shields because some are very inaccurate like those naked guys and the haploi hoplitai 5 armour from were ?????? and the shields defence 5 for all piked units ? and 4 for roman scutum and hoplon which they were more protective.... and 3 for principes and hastati and by the way the camillan hastati
have 7 armour with no armour and the cohors reformata 10 with the lorica hamata ??????????

Have you used enough question marks, or do you need some more. We are not going to go over this again and again. Perhaps it should be included in the FAQ. We are very happy with our current stat system and we are not going to change it. I'm sure someone from the stating team will be able to tell you more.

Foot

The Wicked

05-14-2007, 19:14

:oops: sorry Foot that i upset you it was not in my intension :beam: but i didnt know that this matter was in talks before... perhaps you can direct me in a relative thread :yes: ?

Foot

05-14-2007, 19:38

There are several concerning minor issues, but nothing that would be much interest to read. We haven't released our statting system, so unfortunately we cannot give you much more info. Additionally this isn't my area, so I don't really know what I'm talking about.

Perhaps, if you don't want to upset me, you shouldn't make demands of the team. This is the suggestion thread, so give suggestions but don't demand new content or changes to original content. Its just a way of approaching things carefully.

Foot

I Am Herenow

05-14-2007, 20:07

If the naked warriors do have a 5 armour bonus as The Wicked says, then I too find that rather illogical, although perhaps it's meant to reflect their toughened, weathered skin ;)

Foot

05-14-2007, 20:19

No, its meant to represent their helmet.

Foot

I Am Herenow

05-14-2007, 20:27

Hmm, fair enough I suppose - does M2 subdivide defence bonuses at all (into head, body etc.) or does it keep the same system?

QwertyMIDX

05-14-2007, 21:01

Well guys you MUST change the defence points that every soldier takes from armour and shields because some are very inaccurate like those naked guys and the haploi hoplitai 5 armour from were ?????? and the shields defence 5 for all piked units ? and 4 for roman scutum and hoplon which they were more protective.... and 3 for principes and hastati and by the way the camillan hastati
have 7 armour with no armour and the cohors reformata 10 with the lorica hamata ??????????

Armor counts helmets as well. Clothing gives some armor, pectorals, greaves etc. Its not just high end body armor.

For example, Camillan Hastati have a helment, a heavy shirt, and a greave on the leading leg. All of those things contribute to their armor rating.

Our stat system is seriously thought out, has undergone lots of testing and adjustment, and continues to undergo testing and adjustment, we didn't just make up numbers.

Cybvep

05-14-2007, 21:41

Do you guys plan to limit the effect of experience somehow? Maybe increasing overall stats and giving e.g. 3 chevrons to every unit is a good way of accomplishing this? Something surely must be done.

Sdragon

05-15-2007, 16:53

Any chance of the first government (the military law one) giving more than a 5% boost? Once empires get big it gets harder to keep distant cities, it gets to a point that its impossible. Could be nice to be able to put martial law in place and wait for the unrest to die down so you can establish a proper government. Lets face it, a newly conquered province isn't going to have the organisation to rebel with a 20 stack army sitting in it.

Kepper

05-15-2007, 20:41

Can you make a scripts form a army if it make a long siege a city, the army get some tip of plague for force the player to attack the city.