Is there a list of events that happen in the campaign, i know there is descr_scripts but that is mostly incomprehensible
Printable View
Is there a list of events that happen in the campaign, i know there is descr_scripts but that is mostly incomprehensible
From EBBS_SCRIPT.txt:
;8: Special Events
; 8a: The Chersonesos Event
; 8b: Tomb Of Alexander
; 8c: Baktrian Independence
; 8d: Roman Triumph
; 8e: Seleukid Anabasis
; 8f: Pahlava Shahanshah
; 8g: Sweboz Triumphs
; 8h: Devastation Script
; 8i: Nomad Horse Discount
; 8j: Gauls - Epeiros Alliance
; 8k: Celtiberian Alliance
; 8l: Rhegion (Romani only)
; 8m: Spartan Agoge Messages
; 8n: Xanthippos
; 8o: Yuezhi Invasion
; 8p: Casse Landing
; 8q: Naravas
Some of these do not work though, like 8b, 8c and 8e.
what is "the Chersonesos Event"? Sounds like a name for a new action movie.
Also, is the EB team gonna fix the broken ones???
Is there a description of them
iono, i was hoping the EB team would clarify this for us
IIRC they no longer work because of the removal of a senate faction, so I think they're unfixable.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus
BTW just as a heads up you'll probably be asked to remove the top image from your sig, they're reserved for team members I think.
Cheers
a: If you attack the city of Chersonesos the KH declares war on you. Looks like it´s supposed to spawn something as well, but aren´t that army there already from the begining? And what´s up with all these diplomats spawning and dying?Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_again
b: If you conquer the Alexandreia as Makedonia or the Arche Seleukeia you can move the corpse of Alexander the Great to Makedonia and bury him there. Doesn´t work since the adding of the Sab´yn that takes up the Senate faction slot.
c: Baktria declares independence from the AS, doesn´t work since the Sab´yn got a place.
d: Gives the ability for succesful Roman (surprise!) generals to earn a triumph.
e: When as the Seleukids you subdue the Pahlavans and the Baktrians. Doesn´t work ´cause the Sab´yn (starting to see a pattern here?).
f: When as the Pahlava you conquer pretty much the old Persian empire and is declared King of Kings.
g: Can be earned after kicking the ass of the Gauls or Romans, but doesn´t actually does anything ´cept gives you some nice trait, though the script indicates that you might get some units as a reward (I can´t really read the script).
h: Ehhh.... looks like certain factions get financial aid, possible when they get devastated by nature stuff.
i: Gives a discount to people having the Nomad Club Membership GoldCard (Sauromatae, Saka-Rauka and Pahlava, do the last one might lose their card after settling down).
j: Someone explained this to me sometime, but can´t remember it. Something about an Epeirote-Gaul alliance (you can tell I´m an genius can´t you?).
k: The Luso´s are allied to the Celtiberians and if anyone tries to approach the Luso´s through Celtiberian lands they´ll get their asses kicked by a big guy named Moskon and the Luso´s will declared war on the tresspasser. Of course, if the Luso try to do the same Moskon will turn his badass army on them.
l: Rhegion has been taken by a one-eyed (well, he wasn´t one-eyed when he took it) Roman traitor who must be punished by rightful Romans.
m: Allows the KH (or another Hellenistic faction that owns Sparta) can send their younglings to take part of the toughest training program there is to mold them into great and powerful leaders worthy of a at least a minor role in 300: The sequel.
n: A Spartan bastard joins the traitorous Carthies and trains their armies to perform better in war, if they let him that is.
o: A gigantic army of HA´s that threaten to destroy the entire world appear in the eastern part of the map, and then promptly sits there without doing anything at all.
p: Once the Casse have taken control of the entire Brittish Isles an army of theirs spawn in the Belgae lands to encourage them to invade the mainland. Doesn´t really seem to give wanted effect though.
q: Looks like it´s supposed to spawn the Numidian Naravas that helped the Carthies, but I´ve never seen any mention of it.
No, AFAIK they get some money when one of their FMs devastates ("forages") an enemy tile.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Appo
Re: section H
Swordmaster is correct. The devastation script gives cash for "foraging" an enemy tile. This is from the "forager" trait that Sweboz and Saka Rauka generals can get (Sauromatae may also get this, I'm not quite sure about them though).
Wasn't there an event when the Sauromatae invaded the crimea, and that some army spawned
It was the Chersonesos IIRC and it had something to do with Pontos too.
It does. The city of Chersonesos is under the protection of Pontos, and should a faction attack that place, the Pontics will declare war on them.
I heard that if you are the faction that triggers the invasion then you will have to deal with +3H M0$+ H@RDC0R3 HA Army you have ever foughtQuote:
A gigantic army of HA´s that threaten to destroy the entire world appear in the eastern part of the map, and then promptly sits there without doing anything at all.
It depends. The armies that spawn *three* are rebel, so they very well could just sit there doing jack and shit. Which is what they did for me. Or they could siege and destroy that sad little town they spawn outside of.
And then just sit there and do jack and shit. Yep, that´s the Yuhezi, full of jack and shit.
Why do Sweboz and Saka generals get this trait and not Romans or Gauls for instance?Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinusCDXX
Because Romans usually did not go out in small warparties to raid neighbouring villages. They came in full armies to raid and submit the entire land.
But the trait applies if they have a big army too. And the early Germans were the only people who went out in small raiding parties?
Using this with large armies doesn't make sense because you might as well take the settlement and make much more booty.
Also, I'm pretty sure the Anabasis still works.
I don't understand. You don't suffer knocks against morale for leaving your province, no matter how big your army is. Yes, if you are only conquering the provinces right next to you and do so within a season every time, then it makes no difference. But that rarely happens in my games.Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
Why not giving the trait to the Parthians or Saka? Don't they have some kind of history of small scale raids between settlements? Or hunting as they travel by horseback?
Umm... the Saka does have it.
I think it's because these represent the nomadic factions. Nomads are capable of foraging for themselves: they pretty much do it for a living. They didn't bother with a supply train. To a lesser extent, this also applies to the Germans (no large settled communities, majority of freemen expected to produce their own food, no organized logistical effort to speak off). The Parthians on the other hand were in the process of settling down, in other words losing the skill to forage for an entire army. Off course, this is not a perfect representation (early on the Parthians would still be very nomadic, lateron the Saka would settle as well), but the scripting engine is not flexible enough to represent that.
Oops. I thought someone said it wsa a Saba/Sweboz thing. My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Appo
I guess I don't see what the size of a culture's settled communities has to do with how it supplies itself in the field. In fact it seems like the more coordination and logistical planning is possible, the better you should forage. Didn't Roman armies forage? What makes you believe that German armies at the time did it better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
The supplying of an army in the field is part of the upkeep costs for all factions. Think of this as in addition to that. Low-level raiding, independent warbands after booty. Its a gameplay thing that emphasizes the role of raiding and living off the land that played a major part in those faction's economy. So this is not about supplying yourself in the field (for a start it requires your army to stand on one spot for a number of turns) but rather it is about the extra-curricular purposes of those armies: the raiding and pillaging of an enemy faction's resources without any immediate motion to conquering the province - certainly more of a hallmark of germanic or nomadic forces than the armies of a mediterranean faction. The armies of Rome, Greece etc were all either standing armies billeted on farmed land when not at war (either defensively or offensively), or were called up for a campaign and then returned home: they weren't one for raiding, and raiding was not a way of life for their warrior class.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
May I make a suggestion, Lobf? How about instead of nit-picking incessantly, you try and make some creative conceptualising of these gameplay mechanics that would make sense of how we have implemented them and then enjoy the game.
The best way to use it that I can see is to split the army up into one unit forces and have them sit next to each other; each army adding its own bonus to the faction's treasury.
Foot
This is a fine explanation. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Incessantly nit-picking? I was trying to figure out how/why this thing existed. I was under the impression that it just kept armies from becoming demoralized in the field. And my last reply was to Ludens specifically.Quote:
May I make a suggestion, Lobf? How about instead of nit-picking incessantly, you try and make some creative conceptualising of these gameplay mechanics that would make sense of how we have implemented them and then enjoy the game.
I wish it wasn't offensive to ask critical-sounding questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
Explain to me how that is a critical-sounding question. You never make any effort to think for yourself, to put forward a hypothesis that might fit with what we've done and then deconstruct it for inaccuracies. The end result is that an unsaid assumption of every one of your questions is that the EB team is a bunch of idiots. How else can it be read? If this had been your first question on the forums then it would have been not a problem to answer. However you have a history and therefore ask within the context of that history.Quote:
Why do Sweboz and Saka generals get this trait and not Romans or Gauls for instance?
The reputation you have gathered around yourself is one of a poster who's only purpose is to attack the EB team, where no answer is good enough, where you imagine it is your god-given right to pester us more and more even after we have said that we do not currently have the expertise to answer you. To redeem yourself you need to change your attitude. Before you say it, that doesn't mean you must cower before the almighty word of the great and good EB team. We are not always right and never claim to be, however just persistently asking without making any attempt to put forward and defend a different position is just dull. And once you have been answered to the best we are able to do at that time please don't continue as if we've been holding back. If you are not satisfied with the answer then just be satisfied that you have EB to play with (you do play EB, don't you? Or do you just complain about it?).
Foot
PWNED!
Well, Foot is right, lobf does come of as a bit of a... negative person unwilling to think for himself. Not that there´s anything wrong with that... kinda.
I don't think it is...Quote:
Explain to me how that is a critical-sounding question.
I don't understand how this relates to this situation. Anyways the whole point of asking the question was because I couldn't figure out a hypothesis to fit with what you've done.Quote:
You never make any effort to think for yourself, to put forward a hypothesis that might fit with what we've done and then deconstruct it for inaccuracies.
I never meant to address the team in the first place. Anyone who feels they can answer my question can choose to do so or not. If a team member wants to, great. But I certainly don't expect it. I only questioned konny because he took the time to answer me, which I took to mean that he had the time/expertise to help, but his answers assumed I understood how the trait worked. That's the only reason we went back and forth.Quote:
The end result is that an unsaid assumption of every one of your questions is that the EB team is a bunch of idiots. How else can it be read? If this had been your first question on the forums then it would have been not a problem to answer. However you have a history and therefore ask within the context of that history.
The reputation you have gathered around yourself is one of a poster who's only purpose is to attack the EB team, where no answer is good enough, where you imagine it is your god-given right to pester us more and more even after we have said that we do not currently have the expertise to answer you. To redeem yourself you need to change your attitude. Before you say it, that doesn't mean you must cower before the almighty word of the great and good EB team. We are not always right and never claim to be, however just persistently asking without making any attempt to put forward and defend a different position is just dull. And once you have been answered to the best we are able to do at that time please don't continue as if we've been holding back. If you are not satisfied with the answer then just be satisfied that you have EB to play with (you do play EB, don't you? Or do you just complain about it?).
I'm terribly sorry that I've developed a reputation as a negative person. I don't agree that I have to have an opinion to ask questions. I play the devil's advocate, but I don't do it to fight. It's just an effective way to understand a particular issue. None of this is personal. And because I ask a lot of questions doesn't mean that I don't think for myself. It means I try not to create hypotheses without sufficient information.
Anyways, this should be taken to PMs. I just couldn't come back without acknowledging this topic.