Help needed with Hayasdan Orontid Reforms

Hello everyone

This is my first post so let me start by congratulating everyone involved with the EB mod on a wonderful job and complementing them on their skills. This is truly a very enjoyable game and seeing the amount of work put in I am stunned. I have been an enthusiastic player of the Total War series for many years now and after empire ( :thumbsdown: ) I thought it was sort of over.... Then I read a complaint post for empire mentioning EB as an example of what can be achieved through the community's contribution. So I thought I'd give it a shot. And I did. And now can't wait for EB 2 whenever it comes.

As for the question at hand, I am having trouble with the Hayasdan Orotnid Reforms. I have completed the reforms at Persepolis and Susa. But I cannot get passed "The conqueror comes..." building, in Seleykeia, Babylon and Arbela, which is to say that as soon as the building is completed I do not get the subjugation available marker in the afore mentioned cities. I have read a relative previous post regarding the Katoikiai built by the Seleykids but that did not help.
Details on this campaign, even though i do not know whether they are relevant to the running of the reforms script: Victory Conditions have been met, year is 230, capital is Karkathiokerta and the March of Times has occured. Campaign difficulty is very hard and battles are at medium or normal (can't remember what it's called).

Any help or ever mere suggestions are welcome...
Thanx in advance and keep up the good work.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ion&highlight=

Had the same problem ;)

First, Arbela, Babylon, Ekbatana, Charax and Seleukeia must have type III gov. If there are Klerouchiai ("land for military settler") in those cities, destroy it. Then, build Royal Administration. Then you can build Ashxarakalu Galise.... (the conquerer comes...).

I hope I helped you out and I wish you luck with your mighty Hai empire!

@Intifadanyz: They do have type III gov. I did destroy the Klerouchiai where they were present and was able to build Royal Administration and then "the conqueror comes". But that's as far as it goes. The Subjugation available marker should have appeared now (it did when i was reforming Persepolis and Suza) in order for me to destroy the Type III gov building and set up a Type II gov. Also the tier 2W includes only 4 of the 5 cities you mention, unless i have missed out on some change. But thank you very much for your input...
It did help and here is how: "A script will now check a set of conditions in other provinces (see map below), if the conditions return true then after a couple of turns it will create the Expansion Precursor building in the province, which will allow the construction of a Type II Government."
I reran through the reforms pdf and read the quoted text above.
So a) I guess it requires some extra turns regardless of how fast it came about for Persepolis and Suza and
b) I need to clarify whether or not my building the "Royal administration" and "The conqueror comes" buildings in Arbela (Tier 3W) has anything to do with the issue.
If someone could clarify and I'd be very thankful. Thanx again for the input Intifadanyz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ion&highlight=

Had the same problem ;)

---

@Ziegenpeter:

Having thoroughly read the thread you posted i found people mentioning that "the conqueror comes" building must be built in all provinces of a tier before the subjugation available marker appears and the reform can continue with type II gov. barracks and "Brings law and order". This however is not mentioned in the reforms guide. Can anyone verify this? As it happens I will have "the conqueror comes" in Charax and ekbatana (done in Seleykeia and Babylon) so i'll know then, but it would be nice if someone could verify beforehand that this is the issue. As for the other proposal concerning space for the marker to appear it might be so in Seleykeia in my campaign but not in babylon.... i would have seen it.

Thank you very much for taking the time to post

a) Sorry my bad....Arbela is in tier 3W.

b) The order: Type 3 gov (in all cities in that tier) ---> royal administration ---> The conqueror come... ----> subjugation marker should appear, destroy type 3 gov, build type 2 gov ----> tribal conscription ----> tribal barrack ----> town barrack and stable ----> ...bring peace and order

ok guys. thanx for everyone's help. there was actually no problem. The only "inconsistency", if one could call it that, is that all provinces must complete "the conqueror comes..." before any of them can be further reformed. I think it had better been explicitly mentioned in the reform guide. Other than that, it's all good :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

ok guys. thanx for everyone's help. there was actually no problem. The only "inconsistency", if one could call it that, is that all provinces must complete "the conqueror comes..." before any of them can be further reformed. I think it had better been explicitly mentioned in the reform guide. Other than that, it's all good :-)

---

Welcome. I hope you thoroughly enjoy your Hai campaign. I know I did, over and over and over again. The reforms can indeed be frustrating the first time around. I was told once that Armenians get their reforms sooner than foreigners. I don't think there's any foundation to that claim. In any case, native or foreign, it's always fun to recreate the Achaemenid Empire. Enjoy!

Yes I am enjoying it very much. I rarely continue playing after victory. In most cases I do not see much point in doing so. Perhaps if a historically important city is located near by I might go on for a few more turn till it is conquered too, but the Hai campaign is really a step beyond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

Yes I am enjoying it very much. I rarely continue playing after victory. In most cases I do not see much point in doing so. Perhaps if a historically important city is located near by I might go on for a few more turn till it is conquered too, but the Hai campaign is really a step beyond.

---

Then you must not know about the true intentions of a proper Hai campaign. A proper Hai campaign, if you will, requires a diligent Arkah, one willing to go beyond expectations. Then again, it is only expected of the Arkah to conquer the world. Don't do the Hai an injustice. Don't stop. Keep going. Conquer the known world.

Really? Why would I conquer all? There so many factions I am looking forward to lead in the future. Is there some surprise other than the type I gov in Persepolis and Suza I read about?
I am considering playing all the way to 172 to see the Yuezhi but I think that's where 'll draw the line. i've already sort of decided not to destroy the Koinon (it would require of me to take ambrakia and epidamnos which would probably rebel soon and drag me into a war with my friendly Epeirote neighbors allied to the Romani). I like peace at the border which is why I intend to crush Bactria all the way to india if i have to, for bribing 3 of my border cities to the east just as i was making ready to complete vixtory conditions. I think now the 've incorporated a word for Hai into their language as a synonym for divine wrath!!! (nice RPB babbling dont' you think?)

On an other note, and please tell me if I should open a new thread for this one. What's the difference between a kontos charge and one with maces (alt + right click) by Armenian kataphracts for example. Does one have effect against armour while the other doesn't? and if so which? what's the point of having a non-effective against armour attack? In general could someone elabaorate on this?

Always charge with your Kontos.

The Mace can be used in melee, especially with other (armoured) horsemen.

I don't quite follow you with the non-effective against armour attack... They are effective, except against armour... You sure you didn't imagine the "non-", because I only remember "effective against armour" units...

Both double-handed lances and maces have an AP (armour piercing) attack. However, the lances have a very slow attack speed as well as a very low attack factor so they are only useful during the charge. In general, it's better to use secondary cavalry arms even when they are not AP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Both double-handed lances and maces have an AP (armour piercing) attack. However, the lances have a very slow attack speed as well as a very low attack factor so they are only useful during the charge. In general, it's better to use secondary cavalry arms even when they are not AP.

---

Except there's a slight problem that CA never foresaw and that EB Team could have easily fixed. And I've brought this up so many times without any definitive response. For instance, Armenian Noble Cataphracts have a primary lance attack of 5 and a secondary mace attack of 10. What CA made a mistake on is implementing a primary and secondary charge, instead of one single charge value. That is, although attack charges and alt+attack charges both use the primary weapon (namely, the lance), the EB Team chose to give the primary charge 37 and the secondary 18. As you can see, this is unnecessary. We can't really blame CA, as it isn't too difficult to write down '37' for both primary and secondary charge values. It effectively acts as if there was only one single charge value. The downside of this mistake is that us players must attack charge and then when the charge has died down, alt+attack to engage in melee. It's just a nuisance especially in MP because it adds unnecessary component to the micromanagement aspect of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

Always charge with your Kontos.

The Mace can be used in melee, especially with other (armoured) horsemen.

I don't quite follow you with the non-effective against armour attack... They are effective, except against armour... You sure you didn't imagine the "non-", because I only remember "effective against armour" units...

---

I was just wandering if both attacks are effective against armour Mediolanicus. If only one of them was, then the other would have to not be. My imagination is fine and at its proper place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Except there's a slight problem that CA never foresaw and that EB Team could have easily fixed. And I've brought this up so many times without any definitive response. For instance, Armenian Noble Cataphracts have a primary lance attack of 5 and a secondary mace attack of 10. What CA made a mistake on is implementing a primary and secondary charge, instead of one single charge value. That is, although attack charges and alt+attack charges both use the primary weapon (namely, the lance), the EB Team chose to give the primary charge 37 and the secondary 18. As you can see, this is unnecessary. We can't really blame CA, as it isn't too difficult to write down '37' for both primary and secondary charge values. It effectively acts as if there was only one single charge value. The downside of this mistake is that us players must attack charge and then when the charge has died down, alt+attack to engage in melee. It's just a nuisance especially in MP because it adds unnecessary component to the micromanagement aspect of the game.

---

Well you have to admit that a charge with a spear is more effective than a charge with a mace (in actual combat) so it makes sense to downgrade it in game mechanics (18 instead of 37). And then a mace is more effective than a spear when close to the enemy. So micro is more troublesome but make for a closer representation of what might have actually happened in real combat. In my oppinion it had better been listed in the unit card so players could get a better idea of what's going on inside the engine. And btw how does one come across all the info you mention about secondary charge strenght, secondary attack strength, primary attack speed, secondary attack speed and so on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

That is, although attack charges and alt+attack charges both use the primary weapon (namely, the lance), the EB Team chose to give the primary charge 37 and the secondary 18. As you can see, this is unnecessary. We can't really blame CA, as it isn't too difficult to write down '37' for both primary and secondary charge values. It effectively acts as if there was only one single charge value. The downside of this mistake is that us players must attack charge and then when the charge has died down, alt+attack to engage in melee. It's just a nuisance especially in MP because it adds unnecessary component to the micromanagement aspect of the game.

---

I am sorry, but I don't quite follow. Are you saying that the charge value of the secondary weapon is used when alt-attacking? If so, are you sure that the game isn't using the attack value of that one, either?

There's a unit list that comes with the EB installation which has most of the unit stats. There should be a shortcut to it from the start menu. Sadly it is a bit outdated though (is there an updated version around?). The only other option I know of is to try to decipher the "export_descr_unit.txt" file in your /EB/Data/ folder.

Either y'all are intentionally playing dumb or you honestly don't have a clear idea of what I'm describing. I certainly hope (and really do believe) it is the latter. In that case, let me try again:

First off, to anyone who hasn't realized this as of yet, picture the following situation. You have a cataphract that is standing 50 metres aways from an infantry company. You can order your cataphract to attack the infantry company by either right clicking on the mouse, or holding ALT and then right clicking. Either way, the cataphract charges using the lance (just look at the animation + were you really expecting a "charge" with a mace?). Now, in either case, the charge value should be one and the same, because in both cases the lance is used in the charge. Sure the attack value is different in melee, but the issue at hand has nothing to do with melee. The issue is: why should ALT-right-clicking use half the charge value, when in fact the cataphract uses the same lance to charge with? Doesn't anyone else see the strangeness in that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Either y'all are intentionally playing dumb or you honestly don't have a clear idea of what I'm describing. I certainly hope (and really do believe) it is the latter. In that case, let me try again:

First off, to anyone who hasn't realized this as of yet, picture the following situation. You have a cataphract that is standing 50 metres aways from an infantry company. You can order your cataphract to attack the infantry company by either right clicking on the mouse, or holding ALT and then right clicking. Either way, the cataphract charges using the lance (just look at the animation + were you really expecting a "charge" with a mace?). Now, in either case, the charge value should be one and the same, because in both cases the lance is used in the charge. Sure the attack value is different in melee, but the issue at hand has nothing to do with melee. The issue is: why should ALT-right-clicking use half the charge value, when in fact the cataphract uses the same lance to charge with? Doesn't anyone else see the strangeness in that?

---

I agrre with what you are saying. That's why I continue this thread, in hope to understand how it works exactly. My questions is, why would a cataphract use anything but his mace once the charge is done? Why do we get horsemen pushing other units with their spear in close combat, instead of striking with their maces or kopis blades, or axes or whatever it is they carry? In other words, why should we have to Alt + right click?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

I agrre with what you are saying. That's why I continue this thread, in hope to understand how it works exactly. My questions is, why would a cataphract use anything but his mace once the charge is done? Why do we get horsemen pushing other units with their spear in close combat, instead of striking with their maces or kopis blades, or axes or whatever it is they carry? In other words, why should we have to Alt + right click?

---

No no no. Do not derail the issue at hand please. At least give the community that much, we all deserve it kdrakak. It's an engine thing. Don't be lazy, just go ahead and Alt+right click. That is not the issue.

Here's the problem and what my assumption is. My assumption is that we must forget the animations for a second. That is, when you alt-charge, the cata is using it's MACE in the charge, and we can't see that. And because it is "charging with its mace", the charge value is different (about half) than primary charge. If this is why the team placed differing charge values, then I agree, it's fine. ALL it means is that the player needs to primary charge (right-click), and when the charge dies down, simply alt-attack to switch to secondary (mace, sword, etc). This may as well be the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

No no no. Do not derail the issue at hand please. At least give the community that much, we all deserve it kdrakak. It's an engine thing. Don't be lazy, just go ahead and Alt+right click. That is not the issue.

Here's the problem and what my assumption is. My assumption is that we must forget the animations for a second. That is, when you alt-charge, the cata is using it's MACE in the charge, and we can't see that. And because it is "charging with its mace", the charge value is different (about half) than primary charge. If this is why the team placed differing charge values, then I agree, it's fine. ALL it means is that the player needs to primary charge (right-click), and when the charge dies down, simply alt-attack to switch to secondary (mace, sword, etc). This may as well be the case.

---

I am not trying to derail at all. I am just trying to find out what the engine's mechanics are. And in the process i make the assumption that they were fashioned in a way that makes sense. And this does not seem to be too much. If there are multiple attack values, multiple attack speed values and multiple charge values it should be public knowlegde for the people playing the game. And on a second note why should the Amrenian Armoured Horse-archers' charge with the spear not be effective against armour while the same performed by noble cataphracts be effective against armour? To me, that implies that the effective against armour part probably refers to the mace attack. And lastly charge value (primary I guess) for the former is greater than that of the latter (44 and 37 respectively if I remember correctly). Again I am not derailing. I am not out to make an impression. I am just hoping to get some informed answers from people who might know these things better than I do.

p.s. Vartan it seems to me that you have changed your views in the last two posts. Can you clarify what you believe to be the case on the issue?

Just read posts 18 and 20. I haven't changed anything. We don't know how most things work. CA isn't obligated to release all info. Period. Those two posts are just my theory on how it might work (i.e. might as well work, or how it practically works, take it as you will).

More charge for an armoured horse archer versus a kataphract makes sense. Why do you think the kataphract has more armour and less charge? Think weight. Also, the armoured horse archer has a secondary lace that is armour piercing. Check this page on the unit and you'll see their secondary lance is AP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Just read posts 18 and 20. I haven't changed anything. We don't know how most things work. CA isn't obligated to release all info. Period. Those two posts are just my theory on how it might work (i.e. might as well work, or how it practically works, take it as you will).

More charge for an armoured horse archer versus a kataphract makes sense. Why do you think the kataphract has more armour and less charge? Think weight. Also, the armoured horse archer has a secondary lace that is armour piercing. Check this page on the unit and you'll see their secondary lance is AP.

---

post 18: Either way, the cataphract charges using the lance (just look at the animation + were you really expecting a "charge" with a mace?). Now, in either case, the charge value should be one and the same, because in both cases the lance is used in the charge.
post 20:That is, when you alt-charge, the cata is using it's MACE in the charge, and we can't see that. And because it is "charging with its mace", the charge value is different (about half) than primary charge.

To me the above two are different. Maybe there is something I am missing.
If I think weight, i will reach the conclusion that the heavier unit (given enough space to build up the charge) will make a better charge. That is why modern armour or wall piercing ammo uses heavier heads than conventional ammo. I take it that the noble cataphract is heavier than the armored horse-archer, even just a little bit, so should have a better charge value, in my opinion.

Also my point during this whole thread is that if the armored horse-archer has an armour piercing attack, it should be stated in the unit card (in game).
And finally: Cool page the EB units list!! Where does all the data come from? And I am referring to stuff like lethality and mass? Does anyone know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

Also my point during this whole thread is that if the armored horse-archer has an armour piercing attack, it should be stated in the unit card (in game).
And finally: Cool page the EB units list!! Where does all the data come from? And I am referring to stuff like lethality and mass? Does anyone know?

---

export_descr_units (EDU). The RTW enigne does not give all the info on the unit card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

post 18: Either way, the cataphract charges using the lance (just look at the animation + were you really expecting a "charge" with a mace?). Now, in either case, the charge value should be one and the same, because in both cases the lance is used in the charge.
post 20:That is, when you alt-charge, the cata is using it's MACE in the charge, and we can't see that. And because it is "charging with its mace", the charge value is different (about half) than primary charge.

To me the above two are different. Maybe there is something I am missing.
If I think weight, i will reach the conclusion that the heavier unit (given enough space to build up the charge) will make a better charge. That is why modern armour or wall piercing ammo uses heavier heads than conventional ammo. I take it that the noble cataphract is heavier than the armored horse-archer, even just a little bit, so should have a better charge value, in my opinion.

Also my point during this whole thread is that if the armored horse-archer has an armour piercing attack, it should be stated in the unit card (in game).
And finally: Cool page the EB units list!! Where does all the data come from? And I am referring to stuff like lethality and mass? Does anyone know?

---

See below.

And you can take up the higher charge for the Armoured HA with the EB Team. None of these are prime time issues. The only big problem here is the lack of an explanation for the two varying charge values, for which I offered an explanation that I believe is satisfactory. Forget the animation. The game doesn't work based on animations. It works based on stats. This is RTW, not M2TW. Answer is simple: charge primary, attack secondary once charge dies down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

export_descr_units (EDU). The RTW enigne does not give all the info on the unit card.

---

Precisely.

nope. not prime issues. but they were worth clearing up. in my opinion anyway.....
thanx everyone.

Armenian Noble Cataphracts are less armoured than the Cataphract HAs, so the lower charge value makes sense. OTOH, they're better in melee, and have better stamina and morale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Armenian Noble Cataphracts are less armoured than the Cataphract HAs, so the lower charge value makes sense. OTOH, they're better in melee, and have better stamina and morale.

---

That's correct. I forgot to mention that. Thankfully, though, the cataphracts are better skilled in the art of defence (needless to say).