1.1 historical battles

[Leviathan DarklyCute]

I saw in the 1.1 prewiew that there will be add new historical battles. I remember that RTRPE featured the battle of Magnesia. It was a really awesome battle in which the seleucids and the romans clash with all their might.
I was wondering if EB team could included this battle, or similar epic battles alike in 1.1?

sorry if my english is bad:study:

[pezhetairoi]

Well, Asculum (if Asculum it is) saw the Romans and the Epeirotes clash with all their might too. And Telamon saw the Celts and Romans clash with all their might. And Carrhae saw the Parthians and Romans clash with all their might.

Is anyone else noticing, but is there some over-fixation on the Romans here?

[Geoffrey S]

There was a battle of Magnesia available here for 0.81 (I think).

[Christianus]

Its probably a fixation because the romans conquered the mediteranean (and then some), therefore they had huge and important battles with those who opposed them:) What about bringing in some of their civil War battles. For example "Battle of Lyon" (I think) Between Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus 197 A.D. ?

[marodeur]

You are right, most historicaql battles are with rome.

Additional Battles I would like to see:

Raphia (Ptolies-Seleukids), Cannae and Zama (Carthaginans-Romans), Gergovia (Gauls-Romans), Chaironeia (Pontos-Romans), teutoburger Wald (Sweboz-romans), the elephant-battle (galatians-seleukids), some of the battles between epeirotes and romans.

Once again, roman predominance.

Battles which I would like to see but don't know anything about:

parthian invasion of the seleukid empire
baktrian fight for independence against the seleukids
baktrian march against the indian kingdoms,
battles between different gallic tribes,
battles between romans and lusotannan
battles between romans and Getai (Decebalus)
battles between romans and casse

The problem is, that for historical battles you need quite precise information about terrain, troop numbers and composition, tactics and so on. But AFAIK there are not very many suitable sources for non-roman battles, especially for those between barbarian factions. Most of the big battles between the successor states have happened before the EB-timeline. So there will always be a roman predominance in the historical battle compartment. It's unavoidable i guess.

[Eduorius]

Some battles have very little info. We know that it occured and we know the names of the commanders, but we dont know the number of soldiers or what tactics they used. It would be better to be represented as a custom battle.

Many battles have been scripted for the next release so you will see the X scale army doing what they really did in history and not the AI.

[Tyrfingr]

Some battles have very little info. We know that it occured and we know the names of the commanders, but we dont know the number of soldiers or what tactics they used. It would be better to be represented as a custom battle.

Many battles have been scripted for the next release so you will see the X scale army doing what they really did in history and not the AI.
Any date (or hint of date) when 1.1 might be out?

[Eduorius]

Feb 30

[bovi]

Before EB2. However, you may take a hint at that we just called in beta testers. Who remembers how long 1.0 was in beta testing?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
A couple years? :inquisitive:
.

[zooeyglass]

.
A couple years? :inquisitive:
.

sigh :inquisitive:

[Leviathan DarklyCute]

Anyway, the reason I think you should include Magnesia is because is was a clash between the two greatest empires of that time, therefore it would be awesome to play.

[anubis88]

Anyway, the reason I think you should include Magnesia is because is was a clash between the two greatest empires of that time, therefore it would be awesome to play.
So were Cannae and Carrhae:laugh4:

[Tyrfingr]

Before EB2. However, you may take a hint at that we just called in beta testers. Who remembers how long 1.0 was in beta testing?
Just worried that I will not have the time to finish my AAR before 1.1 reaches the net...

[bovi]

.
A couple years? :inquisitive:
.
No, that's how long EB was in beta testing. EB 1.0, I said.

[zooeyglass]

No, that's how long EB was in beta testing. EB 1.0, I said.

how long was eb1.0 in beta testing?

[bovi]

I can't remember :laugh4:.

[Mouzafphaerre]

No, that's how long EB was in beta testing. EB 1.0, I said.
.
I know, I just had to be a good badboy. :clown:
.

[Leviathan DarklyCute]

So what historical battles will be in 1.1?

[abou]

Whatever gets into 1.1.

Truth is, doing work on the battles is a lot harder than many probably originally thought. Take Panion: there is this ravine running down the center and each side split into two armies. So, what does the AI, the big limiting factor in all this, do?

Does it analyze the lay of the land and have each army confront the one in front of it? No! It has them march around in a confused manner and then sends them across the ravine. So what do I have to do then?

Well, I need to script the battle to a certain point and make an educated guess on when and how the player would come into contact with enemy units. Many times that just doesn't work. Hell, I can't even get elephant units to attack each other. They just sit there plinking away at one another with arrows. And this is the pattern for many of the more complicated battles I hoped to work on - including Raphia and the Fight against Molon. In the end, I might make another one of them multiplayer just so that all my work doesn't go to waste.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Just that you know about the nightmare, I once saw a Battle script which had some bug since it would always cause a CTD. Without error message. It was one of the first historical battles abou tried to make... But then if you looked at the code someone has paintsakingly tried to suggest at least some structure by means of layout... I mean whatever the parsing mechansim behind it, it is so simple that it is (at least in that case it turned out to be) unable to detect one group (bunch of units stacked together just like you do with the GUI, but then through a script command/declaration) had not been defined (common case of the typo) prior to using it.

Apart from that there was a duplicate code block.

But it takes you ~10 mins alone just to figure out there's a duplicate code block: abou had to run the battle again to find out that this was not the cause ... and then we could all happily resume staring at code which isn't really in any way self-evident at all.

[abou]

Ugh... that was the chain-rout script, wasn't it? And to think, a month later I ended up dropping it because it made the battle too easy... only to later find myself mired in a miasma of suck because I couldn't script the wings well enough.

Oi.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes, that one.