General EB2 Suggestions

[Byzantine_Dragon]

I’m not being overly judgemental or trying to criticise, I just want to voice some opinions/suggestions about EB1 EB2 and M2TW modes in development, to help produce a better product.


EB2 -> Suggestions

-I never thought I would miss anything from Vanilla RTW, but you need to bring back the grimy centurion voice [after issues any commands] and most importantly you really need to bring back some of the fast paced music from RTW and BI (during combat) I RECENTLY PLAYED INVASIO BARBARORUM, I HELPS WITH AMBIANCE.


-Nothing but dense forest in Germany

-Definitely keep long range Slingers, but try to limit them [AGENT LIMIT] for historical accuracy.


***Ability to give military aid to allies***
- Sort of a automated and mutual cheap bribe code that gives allied faction control over certain troop types (Or lends them) without being involved directly in conflict. [i.e. put unit in city with set building them when deal is made that unit is disbanded on your city but appears in a city owned by the other faction.
- Additionally the troops could only last a few turns before disbanding as per agreement (Their upkeep is paid by the faction granting them).


***M2TW UNIT LIMITS AND RECRUIT LIMITS***

Basically incorporate the numerical limit on the number of units that can be recruited at any one time

Also the Recruitment slot would be great for larger settlements

Additionally Use Agent Limits to curb the use of special units [Gallic swordsmen from Asia Minor or Cretan Archers or some other special/holy units]




COMBAT
-Slower pace combat is welcome but it becomes unrealistic. Combat needs to be slow (more a pushing and shoving match – Roman Army) more than a 30 event after a 3 minute loading screen. WITH INFANTRY

+However with Cavalry it’s another story. In the RTW engine they don’t charge as realistically as in M2TW. Lance cavalry needs to be more effective [esp. from sides and rear of enemy formation (i.e. Phalanx)].

+Need more sword action from cavalry. At some point or with some cavalry unit they need to use short weapons with more than 5 attack to butcher skirmishers (this doesn’t happen in EB1)

+Additionally I would like to see a slaughter every now and again. Perhaps after the fight is over [slow EB1 type battle] or has been in progress for a long time, as a result of exhaustion ONLY they could be a drop in stats that could conclude certain battles/armies with a Vanilla like slaughter (Using high attack sword cavalry).

(E.g. Historically Roman [civil war] battles were pushing/shoving matches with few casualties, however if prolonged [fail to withdraw] then there would be the rare slaughter)


NOTE:
-Map size is Great, but the far north east provinces get really lonely being void of any political conflict. I don’t think its too important to spread the map too far into India [ESP. IF IT SLOWS DOWN PERFORMANCE].

-Second Rebel Faction to represent nomads and have them act more aggressive up to a certain portion of the map. (Representing nothing but Horse archers)

[bovi]

I've answered some of your suggestions in the other thread, I'll answer those that are unique to this one here.

We are happy with our music, and we are trying to replace all vanilla voices where it is possible to get native speech instead. We will not revert to any vanilla content wherever we have changed it.

Why would there be nothing but dense forest in Germany? Do you know the famous battle in Teutoburg forest? It should definitely be possible to move armies through Germany.

Giving military aid in the way you propose is a good idea, but impossible. You would have to petition CA to add this feature. You may want to try Galactic Civilizations II, it has that feature and it can be used to good effect.

How is a slower pace combat unrealistic? The rest of your sentence is incomprehensible.

Perhaps the cavalry should be more effective in a charge. I'll let someone else respond to the historicity of it.

For cavalry units, you need to charge with their primary weapon (spear) and switch to their secondary weapon (sword) by alt-clicking the enemy. Or even better, pull them out again and charge once more.

We cannot affect stats during combat. If you are not able to slaughter the enemy after they break, I suggest you try recruiting more cavalry. I routinely kill more than 85% of the enemy army.

We are trying to help the steppe factions, who have been tragically inactive in 0.8x. We cannot control AI aggressiveness and other priorities.

[Byzantine_Dragon]

I've answered some of your suggestions in the other thread, I'll answer those that are unique to this one here.


For cavalry units, you need to charge with their primary weapon (spear) and switch to their secondary weapon (sword) by alt-clicking the enemy. Or even better, pull them out again and charge once more.




Wait a minute, theirs an alternative attack for cavalry. I knew there war one for archers but not melee units???

So the 5 attack for Carthages Band Cavalry is that sword or lance attack??

[Byzantine_Dragon]

The frantic music [from vanilla] helps to add ambiance and a sense of urgency, especially when fighting against the odds.
Its all about ambiance, EB1 battle felt a bit cold
The music is supposed to transit from vocal singing to drum banging when the armies begin to engage each other ??
:smash:



Slower paced combat [in EB1 compared to Vanilla] makes the battles more realistic (For infantry NOT Cavalry). However you cannot use flanking attacks or ambushes so such effect that it [I]crushes the enemy unit. Thus in my experience it seems impossible to win battles against numerical odds, unless you pepper the enemy with an army of slingers from an uphill advantage.

If by some chance 'defense skill' is affected by exhaustion it could be upped so that after a long, slow grinding battle, a final decisive maneuver could inflict serious casualties.




I recall an earlier post about some user finding something in the BI directly that allows you to prioritize AI behavior with which settlements to take - don't know if this is in M2TW




PS.
Lending soldiers (military resources) to allies without direct involvement in their wars
And
Transparent trees around unit proximity are two things I suggested way back before BI came out.
The guys at CA don't warm up to good ideas

[Geoffrey S]

If you had transparent trees what would be the point of even having trees? Forest combat is meant to be tough and something you'd want to avoid, making it very difficult to see through the canopy is the best way the RTW has of representing this. What I would like to see, however, is somewhat smaller trees.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I'd like to see impassible battlemap trees. Like sections that you can't enter because they are too dense. Many battles sites were chosen to use thick forests to prevent flanking.

[bovi]

Slower paced combat makes the battles more realistic (For infantry NOT Cavalry). However you cannot use flanking attacks or ambushes so such effect that it [I]crushes the enemy unit. Thus in my experience it seems impossible to win battles against numerical odds, unless you pepper the enemy with an army of slingers from an uphill advantage.

That's odd, if you're using the recommended Medium battle difficulty. Maneuvers is the way to defeat the AI. If you're using Hard or Very Hard battle difficulty, be prepared that it will be hard indeed.



I recall an earlier post about some user finding something in the BI directly that allows you to prioritize AI behavior with which settlements to take - don't know if this is in M2TW

I believe you are talking about the victory conditions. While I'm not sure, I think it does not influence the AI all that much. Rebels can't have victory conditions by the way.

And, yes, the Carthie cavalry is using the lances as their primary (charging) weapon:

Bodyguard:

;91
type carthaginian cavalry generals bodyguard
dictionary carthaginian_cavalry_generals_bodyguard ; General's Bodyguard
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type General_1
soldier carthaginian_cavalry_sacredband, 10, 0, 1
mount half armoured horse
mount_effect elephant -1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, general_unit, hide_forest, hardy
formation 1.5, 4, 3, 6, 3, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 4, 35, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 180 ,0.38
stat_pri_attr ap
stat_sec 10, 18, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 0 ,0.1
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 14, 10, 2, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 0, 0, -4, -3
stat_mental 18, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 40
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2039, 0, 110, 160, 2039
ownership egypt, slave


Sacred band is similar:

;96
type carthaginian cavalry haabbirim haqdosim abbirim
dictionary carthaginian_cavalry_haabbirim_haqdosim_abbirim ; Ha'Abbirim Ha'Qdosim Abbirim
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type General_1
soldier carthaginian_cavalry_sacredband, 25, 0, 1
mount half armoured horse
mount_effect elephant -1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy
formation 1.5, 4, 3, 6, 4, square, wedge
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 4, 35, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 180 ,0.38
stat_pri_attr ap
stat_sec 10, 18, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 0 ,0.1
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 14, 10, 2, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 0, 0, -4, -3
stat_mental 18, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 40
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 5097, 1274, 80, 120, 5097
ownership egypt, slave

[Byzantine_Dragon]

The idea behind the trees in Germany is that, historically Germany (at the time) was covered in dense forest (hence the Boar population).

Also it would restrict expansion into Germany by Rome, given the fighting bonus in Forest + Snow


TRANSPARENT TREES

In Medieval 2, when you fight in dense forest the trees aren't as big as those in RTW's forests. And it creates serious problems for issuing commands.

The Idea is a hotkey to make the immediate (surrounding) trees transparent (but still have a tree outline) so you can still have a birds eye view of the general position of your units. ONLY TREES AROUND UNIT ARE TRANSPARENT.


Making combat tough is pointless if attacker and defender have no idea whats going on



MAYBE TRANSPARENCY OF TREES COULD BE A GERMAN FEATURE ???
- if possible



And the cavalry thing is new to me. I though in RTW they automatically switched to swords in close quarters.



PS. I crank the difficulty up to very hard (for battle difficulty + campaign) by default to avoid enemy units becoming idle during sieges and pointlessly breaking formation before battle confrontation.

[bovi]

In Medieval 2, when you fight in dense forest the trees aren't as big as those in RTW's forests. And it creates serious problems for issuing commands.

Making combat tough is pointless if attacker and defender have no idea whats going on

I misunderstood you, I thought you wanted dense forests as in impassable forest on the campaign map. So you want forest all over Germany. Yet you complain about it being hard to control your army in dense forests. So which is it, do you like forests or not? Anyway, the control we have over the battle in TW is entirely unnatural, with a bird's eye view and instant reaction from the troops to commands. In a battle in a forest, indeed you would have no idea what's going on.


The Idea is a hotkey to make the immediate (surrounding) trees transparent (but still have a tree outline) so you can still have a birds eye view of the general position of your units. ONLY TREES AROUND UNIT ARE TRANSPARENT.

MAYBE TRANSPARENCY OF TREES COULD BE A GERMAN FEATURE ???
- if possible
We cannot do this even if we wanted to, as we have no way to add a hotkey, and no way to create transparent trees. CA would have to do it, they control the engine. We can only modify the data the engine uses.


PS. I crank the difficulty up to very hard (for battle difficulty + campaign) by default to avoid enemy units becoming idle during sieges and pointlessly breaking formation before battle confrontation.
Very Hard campaign is recommended, yes. Very Hard battles does not mean the AI won't break formation. It will do that regardless of difficulty level, in fact its intelligence and set of maneuvers is not affected at all. What it means is that the AI gets attack/defence bonuses against your soldiers. This is the reason why you have a hard time getting the desired effect of your maneuvers.

[Byzantine_Dragon]

Sorry. The difficulty level must be what put me off on the combat. I honesty thought difficulty levels determined AI efficiency


Note you could always wipe the floor with any army in RTW on Max Difficulty

[Bootsiuv]

That's why vanilla RTW isn't any fun anymore. The battles were often over in 30 seconds, even on VH/VH. I think battles in EB are harder on M than they were in Vanilla on VH, as it should be.

[FalkyMrsWilliams]

I don't know if it would be too much work for EB Team but, if it's possible, a expansion of the map would be cool. A campaign with the totallity of the "Old World" (all Europe, Asia and Africa) in the classical era, with their regions and factions, religions, buildings... would be very cool. But I think it would be too much work and probably Europa Barbarorum 2 will only englobe the area of the map of EB1.

Will EB Team release a possible Europa Barbarorum 3, when Empire : Total War is made with ETW game engine?

EB1 is a very great job. I can't wait to play with the voicemods that EB Team have announced.

[Bootsiuv]

The problem with map size is that there is a province limit of 199, if I'm not mistaken. All of your other suggestions are , once again, at their limit. Faction limit, unit limit (or damn near it) and any other limits which are hardcoded and won't be overcome. I think the current EB map is as large, accurate, and historical as you can get given the limitations of the engine.

[Ludens]

I don't know if it would be too much work for EB Team but, if it's possible, a expansion of the map would be cool. A campaign with the totallity of the "Old World" (all Europe, Asia and Africa) in the classical era, with their regions and factions, religions, buildings... would be very cool. But I think it would be too much work and probably Europa Barbarorum 2 will only englobe the area of the map of EB1.
You are quite right. Since there are only ten new factions and no new cities available, a lot of detail has to be sacrificed to include these new areas, not to mention the time required to research them. It seems rather pointless too: apart from the yuezhi invasion the contact between EB's civilizations and the far east were mainly through trade, while there was almost no contact with the African cost.

It's rather too early to start speculating about a possible EB for E:TW since we only the most basic facts about the game.

Welcome to the Org and EB, BTW ~:wave: .

[quackingduck]

make a guide for it. i have no clue whats going on half the time. i look on the website and see the casse can get the champion ppl, but all my barracks upgrades give me nothing. and i dont know wheather to build type 1,2,3, or 4 gov'ts. the diplomacy could be better too (civ 3).

[bovi]

Check out Arkatreides' unit cards. It's a sticky in the EB1 forum.

[Bootsiuv]

I don't see how the diplomacy is EB's fault. Although I do agree that a diplomacy system more akin with Civ III's would be the best thing that could happen to this game. To be able to tell people to leave your lands or face war is common sense, and just completely unthinkable that they couldn't have thought about this feature the entire time they were developing the game. But, then M2:TW came out, and, once again, that feature is missing, or so I've been told (haven't bought it yet).

It would also be a little silly to try and write a guide for a game that's still constantly changing. When v. 1.0 comes ( which I assume will basically be the last update, aside from some minor bug fixes), then a guide (with pictures like a real game manual) would be very welcome. I'd even pay a few bucks for it. :)

[antisocialmunky]

I take it you guys probably already talked about perminent forts being remade as minor cities and stuff right?

[abou]

I take it you guys probably already talked about perminent forts being remade as minor cities and stuff right?
Yes and no. We are all very for the idea - especially for the Celts and the Successors - but no details yet.

[I Am Herenow]

Does permanent forts + moddable distance to capital penalty (and therefore potentially infinite distances between cities) = a potentially infinite amount of cities? Within reason, of course.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Does permanent forts + moddable distance to capital penalty (and therefore potentially infinite distances between cities) = a potentially infinite amount of cities? Within reason, of course.
We're not entirely sure how everything works in Kingdoms yet, so there isn't really an answer. But, for one thing, there is a hardcode on the size of the map (being 1.3x as big as the current map), so the map can't be stretched to infinity.

[antisocialmunky]

Is there any way to use the Baronial Revolt or possibility of using that mechinism for certain factions like the KH, Late Romans, or more confederate states?

[Foot]

Is there any way to use the Baronial Revolt or possibility of using that mechinism for certain factions like the KH, Late Romans, or more confederate states?

That requires a faction slot and is essentially the same as the Roman rebels in BI. We've already stated we won't be using shadow factions.

Foot

[Bellum]

The Kingdoms religion thing is looking pretty cool. You can, for instance, change it to a culture rating and tie it to a building prerequisite.


I don't see how you could do that for 30 factions, though. .... :dizzy2:

[Augustus Ceasar]

http://plato.alien.de/bildarchiv/m%FCnchen%20-%20glyptothek/katalog/_FG%2004.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Rtw_Uploads/RTWupload/augustus.jpg

Augustus Caesar "Expo Bunte Götter"

[bovi]

How does that... Why... What are you suggesting?

[MRY6]

Looks fruitty. the coloring of the statue that is. It should have just been just the porcelein clay or whatever. That blue on him reminds me of blue playdoh.

[abou]

Looks fruitty. the coloring of the statue that is. It should have just been just the porcelein clay or whatever. That blue on him reminds me of blue playdoh.
Statues and portraits were extensively painted in antiquity. It is jarring to see, I know, but apparently an extensive corps of artisans was employed by Rome to keep everything in good order - especially since the paint will crack as marble expands and contracts due to weather.

[Bellum]

I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I think you should be able to sell captured soldiers as slaves.

[CaesarAugustus]

I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I think you should be able to sell captured soldiers as slaves.

That's a really good idea it could replace the "Ransom" button on the after-battle prisoner screen.

P.S. Whats with the creepy red-haired Augustus a few posts up?:inquisitive:

[MRY6]

Telling you guys, that Augustus looks like he's wearing playdoh :). If that's how they really painted their sculptures, then wow ive lost some of the great respect i had for their artistry.

[Augustus Ceasar]

http://www.waldgirmes.de/roemer/grafik/augustus.jpg

:laugh4:

[Bootsiuv]

Telling you guys, that Augustus looks like he's wearing playdoh :). If that's how they really painted their sculptures, then wow ive lost some of the great respect i had for their artistry.


I don't understand why exactly. Most sculptures and works of art in the ancient world utilized a lot of color, just as today. It is thought that most, if not all, of the sandy gold monuments (barring the pyramids, although they were covered in white limestone, or marble, or something which escapes my memory right now) which are so iconic of ancient egypt were highly colorized, almost loud in their tones.

People like color.

[Sir Edward]

I remember hearing from one of my proffesors that the exterior of the parthenon was likely painted in hues of red, white, and blue.

However back on the topic of suggestions. Could you use the send_character_off_map command for the olympic script to show the individual is outside of your control for that season?

[Augustus Ceasar]

http://www.fireflybooks.com/media/475/1931414157.jpg

[CaesarAugustus]

The Parthenon looks a lot better with a bit of colour added, I must say..... Why not "paint" large temples and other monument appearing on the battle amp in EB2, if possible?

[Charge]

Hmm. I have played yesterday some turns, and already can say that the main trouble is your strange text (Pahlava, As'Sab'yn wal'Jau, Lvcivs, etc). Roman voice also was rather disappointed :chucks: (I dont say whether it historical or not, but it is more stupid even than vanilla). This "extra-realism" I think, is a over-indulgence... EB will be much more popular without this, just because of it quality. TW isnt played only by historians

[Foot]

Hmm. I have played yesterday some turns, and already can say that the main trouble is your strange text (Pahlava, As'Sab'yn wal'Jau, Lvcivs, etc). Roman voice also was rather disappointed :chucks: (I dont say whether it historical or not, but it is more stupid even than vanilla). This "extra-realism" I think, is a over-indulgence... EB will be much more popular without this, just because of it quality. TW isnt played only by historians

You'd be better off elsewhere then. The rest of us don't agree.

EDIT: The strange text, only appears for names and specific nouns, not everywhere. It does take some getting use to, but why must we pander to those who are just not willing to get into the spirit of the thing. I like the Roman voice and so do many other people, and the team members who made it put a lot of time into doing it.

It is not an over-indulgence on our part to place importance on education in a game. Nor does it detract from the game itself. If it did, we wouldn't have forums that are more busy than any other part of the .org.

Foot

[Kahju]

Roman voice also was rather disappointed :chucks: (I dont say whether it historical or not, but it is more stupid even than vanilla).



You seriously prefer Vanilla's 15 years old American kid screaming "The day is ours" like he had sharp object inside his rectum? EB's voices sound like something from an ancient battlefield, not like something from a bad Hollywood sword and sandals movie. Of course, some people prefer sword and sandals stuff, but EB might not be the mod for them.

[Charge]

Kahju

You seriously prefer Vanilla's 15 years old American kid screaming "The day is ours" like he had sharp object inside his rectum? EB's voices sound like something from an ancient battlefield, not like something from a bad Hollywood sword and sandals movie. Of course, some people prefer sword and sandals stuff, but EB might not be the mod for them.
I dont like vanilla voice (except prebattle speech, which not removed:rtwyes: ), but EB voice werent so serios as it was in life. It is like vanilla "funny" style, just with another accent. Kind of that I 've heard sometime ago in legion arena( really stupid). Maybe I wrong. Today will play more... Interested what barbarian speech you made.

Foot

You'd be better off elsewhere then. The rest of us don't agree.

Well most RTW players arent agree with YOU.
This is style of your mod, which you won't change...:inquisitive:
Thats why I read somewhere : "RTR - best RTW mod ever made". RTR! main part which is good eye-looking units... So..there no mod №1 yet. If you made it a bit less educated, it will be EB, but...


The strange text, only appears for names and specific nouns, not everywhere. It does take some getting use to, but why must we pander to those who are just not willing to get into the spirit of the thing.
Do you know what is "Mechnik" ? No? And I absolutely don't know what is Qarthadastim, unless have look on a map. And I'm not newbie in history... Really interest spirit when you don't know with whom you are fighting in battle!:laugh4: But biography is a really good thing.

Big post...

[Foot]

Well most RTW players arent agree with YOU.
This is style of your mod, which you won't change...:inquisitive:
Thats why I read somewhere : "RTR - best RTW mod ever made". RTR! main part which is good eye-looking units... So..there no mod №1 yet. If you made it a bit less educated, it will be EB, but...

Really, have you made a poll of RTW players? I quite frankly we don't care whether they agree or not. If we wanted to make money we would do a CA, we are doing it for the love of the era, for the love of history and so we can make a game we want to play.

I imagine that there are many players of both mods who would say EB was the better mod. Thats because we have something they are looking for. Some people prefer RTR because RTR has something they were looking for. We cater to different audiences (though there is some cross-over) and this isn't a bad thing.



Do you know what is "Mechnik" ? No? And I absolutely don't know what is Qarthadastim, unless have look on a map. And I'm not newbie in history... Really interest spirit when you don't know with whom you are fighting in battle!:laugh4: But biography is a really good thing.

Thats why we learn. Our inquisitive nature wants to find out more. If we had just had Carthage as the faction name, would you have learnt anything new? No. As I've said before, we want this game to be educational as well as fun. I think we've succeeded.

Foot

[Charge]

Are you planning use EB directory instead of main Data? In this case I will make my mod in it!:grin: You can play a very educating original EB, and as well mine more friendly, reworked SH. Mega mix!:holiday:

[Krusader]

Hmm. I have played yesterday some turns, and already can say that the main trouble is your strange text (Pahlava, As'Sab'yn wal'Jau, Lvcivs, etc). Roman voice also was rather disappointed :chucks: (I dont say whether it historical or not, but it is more stupid even than vanilla). This "extra-realism" I think, is a over-indulgence... EB will be much more popular without this, just because of it quality. TW isnt played only by historians

It is true TW isnt played only by historians. So those who don't like history-focused mods play something else.
EB is made for those who like a focus on history, and when all is debated, EB is basically what we inside EB wants RTW to really be. Our goal isn't to please all audiences, it is to try and please those who want historical realism in their mod and something we try within the limits of the RTW engine imposed on us.

[abou]

Well most RTW players arent agree with YOU.That's fine. Personally, I don't think anyone on the team cares. This modification is foremost for us. If one person doesn't like the fact that we use different naming conventions we could care less. EB: No Compromises.

If you want to enjoy and play the mod, that's great. If you don't, we won't shed a tear.

[Bellum]

Well most RTW players arent agree with YOU.

It's no popularity contest. Historical accuracy, if I'm not mistaken, is the primary goal of EB. Would it not be detrimental to that goal if they did something completely ahistorical? I'm a RTW player, and I happen to love EB.

[Zaknafien]

I think its quite silly of you to suggest that RTR is "No 1 mod" for RTW without any basis to support that whatseover.

But, as my colleagues have said so succintly, we don't paticularly care who likes EB, we make it the way it is because WE like it, not for anyone else.

[HistoryProf]

I'd like to see impassible battlemap trees. Like sections that you can't enter because they are too dense. Many battles sites were chosen to use thick forests to prevent flanking.

The Iceni found that out the hard way.

[HistoryProf]

Oh, after having read the rest of the thread, I can see it took a turn for the worse.

It's my favorite mod, and I've played more than a few. My favorite thing is that it reminds me of MTWI: the dark ambiance is compelling. I wouldn't mind a bit more variety of music. I've even thought of looking for a music mod, but haven't had the time yet.

I can't think of anything (that the dev team is responsible for) I really don't like: it's a great work. EB2 is bound to be even better.

[Charge]

I think its quite silly of you to suggest that RTR is "No 1 mod" for RTW without any basis to support that whatseover.

I mean exactly that many peoples think RTR is №1 mod. But not I !

Also, as m2 engine allows many reforms as events, you must include all units which aren't in EB1 but were in real life (You know what I mean).

[Foot]

I mean exactly that many peoples think RTR is №1 mod. But not I !

Also, as m2 engine allows many reforms as events, you must include all units which aren't in EB1 but were in real life (You know what I mean).

We are still constrained by the hardcoded maximum unit limit which still stands at 500 in MTW2. Seeing as we will 10 new factions in EB2, and we have hit about 460 units for EB1, I don't see how we can include too many more units that do not focus on those new factions. So no, I don't know what you mean.

Foot

[Charge]

I mean proper Imperial Cohort with LS instead of current, which was only in the beginning.

[Krusader]

I mean proper Imperial Cohort with LS instead of current, which was only in the beginning.

Lorica Segmentata?? LS popped up after 14 AD meaning AFTER EB1's timeperiod. Why include units that weren't historically in 14 AD?

From the EB1 FAQ:

Q: Where is the Lorica Segmentata?
A: Lorica Segmentata wasn't used until several years in AD. This places Lorica Segmentata out of the EB time frame and to include it would be ahistorical.

[Charge]

So why EB period ends in 14 AD?
BTW, marian reforms happens around 209 BC?

[Foot]

So why EB period ends in 14 AD?
BTW, marian reforms happens around 209 BC?

That was the death of Augustus. Its an arbitrary date we know, but that is how it is. We wouldn't want to go much further as limits on the numbers of units we can have would mean that we would have to under-represent the first hundred years to better represent the last hundred years.

No the Marian Reforms in EB happen according to a number of conditions. Reading the EB FAQ has all the details.

Foot

[Ludens]

Lorica Segmentata?? LS popped up after 14 AD meaning AFTER EB1's timeperiod. Why include units that weren't historically in 14 AD?
Not true, strictly speaking. There are a couple of LS finds that predate the death of Augustus. However, the point still remains that it didn't come into widespread use until after his death, and it's not like the Romans lack units, now is it?

[Ludens]

Marian reforms surely not in 10* BC, much earlier. So LS must be too!
I think you are confusing a couple of things, because it wasn't Marius who introduced the Lorica Segmentata. As far as we know, the first LS appeared under Augustus, but it wouldn't become common until later emperors. Hence it won't be in EB.

[Foot]

Marian reforms surely not in 10* BC, much earlier. So LS must be too!

Why did you just repeat yourself?

Marius did not introduce the LS. The Marian Reforms were (roughly) 107BC, so yes they did happen then. LS was a much later development of armour that didn't see widespread usage till after our end date.

Foot

[Ludens]

Marian reforms surely not in 10* BC, much earlier. So LS must be too!
...

I think you are confusing a couple of things, because it wasn't Marius who introduced the Lorica Segmentata. As far as we know, the first LS appeared under Augustus, but it wouldn't become common until later emperors. Hence it won't be in EB.

[Charge]

Marian reforms happens surely not in 105 BC. So LS must be...

[Foot]

Marian reforms happens surely not in 105 BC. So LS must be...

Charge, if you continue as you are going, I imagine that there will be consequences. Stop spamming this thread. We (myself and Ludens) have answered your question, there is no need to ask the same question over and over.

Foot

[I Am Herenow]

Marian reforms happens surely not in 105 BC. So LS must be...

First of all, I don't understand what you're trying to say (or why you feel the need to say it several times) - but nevertheless, perhaps if you read this (http://www.unrv.com/empire/marius-reforms-legions.php) and this (http://www.unrv.com/military/legionary-weapons-equipment.php) (scroll down to the "Body Armour" section), you'd understand where Foot et al were coming from?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I don't know exactly what you are saying, but if you're trying to say that if the Marian Reforms had happened earlier then the use of LS may have happened earlier? Maybe, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Add to that the fact that it is debatable whether LS was widely used, LS hasn't been added to EB.

[Charge]

I say that if M-reforms are happening early,coz of gameplay, correspondingly to that LS, as more preferable to imperial legs, should be early too, and be included in EB.
But if you think I'm spamming here, I 'll quit.

Previous 3 post strange because of connection troubles. Sorry about that

Why did you just repeat yourself?

Charge, if you continue as you are going, I imagine that there will be consequences.

First of all, I don't understand what you're trying to say (or why you feel the need to say it several times)
:laugh4: :laugh4: :medievalcheers: :bow:

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

This turned out quite funny, however:

Thank you EBers for making EB exactly as it is! I wouldn't want it any different. :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:

[Foot]

I say that if M-reforms are happening early,coz of gameplay, correspondingly to that LS, as more preferable to imperial legs, should be early too, and be included in EB.
But if you think I'm spamming here, I 'll quit.

And we responded by saying that the development of the LS was not dependent on the Marian or Augustian Reforms. The development of that armour was based on an increase in metolurgical knowledge and the like.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. LS won't be in EB1, and it most likely won't be in EB2.

Foot

[Bellum]

I think chain looks cooler anyway. :dizzy2:

[Connoisseurs]

There are two things I would like to suggest:

1. It would be nice to have forms of government that evolve from (for Baktria) a Baktrian allied state to a Homeland government as more Baktrians populate cities. Is there a way to emulate migration from Baktrian Homelands to colonies so that after, say, 20 years, a Baktrian Homeland is available. Is this already there?

2.What would help is if there were charts saying which cities need what for public order, maybe cleanliness, economic advantages, which could be opened from the faction scroll.

[gamegeek2]

I like how they put in Oskywie dudes, but really, there is a big gaping hole in eastern Europe that makes the Sweboz not challenging (as the game says) but moderate. A Baltic faction wouldn't hurt, but it would be up in Seliun Gentis, etc. to allow the Sweboz space. Historically, the Balts were important traders, as they traded with Romans, Greeks, Germanics, Celts, and even Skythians/Sauromatae. These people should not be left out, and the greater number of factions in M2TW that we can replace make it all the more encouraging to create new factions for game balance and historical accuracy.

A slavic culture (probably Przeworsk and/or Zarubintsy, see Wikipedia) would also be welcome.

Top 5 Faction "Wishlist"

- Numidia: Incredibly influential in the sucess of Rome; their support allowed Rome to defeat Kart-Hadast. Even RTW original has them; EB lacking them is rather sad. I'm pretty sure they were left out due to lack of faction space...
- Baltic Faction: Famous traders throughout Eastern Europe, the Balts got a little taste of everyone by sailing down rivers and bringing back different ones. Also, no more Kirslinkas + friends looking like throw-ins
- Indian Faction: They were a vassal of Alexander (and the Diadochoi after) but they still were a kingdom, and a powerful one at that.
- Expansion to China/Japan; the Silk Road did indeed exist, and Saka Rauka wouldn't need "border trade resource" anymore
- Slavic faction: not as important as Baltic one, but would be useful. They would also make the Oskywie, Voinu dudes look lees random as well

[Zaknafien]

Id like to see you provide some detailed information on a paticular Baltic culture that was cohesive enough to represent a faction with trained military units in the EB time frame.

[Leviathan DarklyCute]

mmm can you guys make the seleucid chariots with 4 horses?
https://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tmp4589gy9.jpg

[Kahju]

- Slavic faction: not as important as Baltic one, but would be useful. They would also make the Oskywie, Voinu dudes look lees random as well


Are you aware of how little we actually know of Slavs before the Middle Ages? Having a Slavic faction in EB would require a tremendous amount of extremely uncertain guesswork. It's like Bastarnae multiplied by 10, only that we know where the Bastarnae lived back then.

[Malik of Sindh]

I like how they put in Oskywie dudes, but really, there is a big gaping hole in eastern Europe that makes the Sweboz not challenging (as the game says) but moderate. A Baltic faction wouldn't hurt, but it would be up in Seliun Gentis, etc. to allow the Sweboz space. Historically, the Balts were important traders, as they traded with Romans, Greeks, Germanics, Celts, and even Skythians/Sauromatae. These people should not be left out, and the greater number of factions in M2TW that we can replace make it all the more encouraging to create new factions for game balance and historical accuracy.

A slavic culture (probably Przeworsk and/or Zarubintsy, see Wikipedia) would also be welcome.

Top 5 Faction "Wishlist"

- Numidia: Incredibly influential in the sucess of Rome; their support allowed Rome to defeat Kart-Hadast. Even RTW original has them; EB lacking them is rather sad. I'm pretty sure they were left out due to lack of faction space...
- Baltic Faction: Famous traders throughout Eastern Europe, the Balts got a little taste of everyone by sailing down rivers and bringing back different ones. Also, no more Kirslinkas + friends looking like throw-ins
- Indian Faction: They were a vassal of Alexander (and the Diadochoi after) but they still were a kingdom, and a powerful one at that.
- Expansion to China/Japan; the Silk Road did indeed exist, and Saka Rauka wouldn't need "border trade resource" anymore
- Slavic faction: not as important as Baltic one, but would be useful. They would also make the Oskywie, Voinu dudes look lees random as well

Balt faction would not be best choice,because they never expanded at all,and thier troops would be the lowest quality there can exist.And mauryan empire(India) was never a vassal of the Diadochoi.It was conquered by these blue Baktrians later,creating Indo-Greek kingdom.I agree with Numidia.

[abou]

Evidence shows that when Antiochos III came to the area and contacted Sophagesenus during his anabasis, the latter paid a tribute. I can't tell you the details though since our Indian expert is MIA.

[Strategos Alexandros]

I think I read somewhere that Antiochos recieved a tribute of elephants in return for his lands east of a river I can't remember the name of. I could be wrong though.

[Admetos]

Originally Posted by gamegeeek2
Even RTW original has them

You know, that really doesen't say much. The original RTW had Roman ninjas, that certainly dosen't make them historical. :laugh4: