Suggestions of that what may be improved in EB single player campaign

Before I say anything then I wish to congratulate the Eb team for making the best game there is about the classical era so I will present mine suggestion in a humble way according to mine experience of total war games

1. An option open for players to disable all building management while focusing more upon military decisions and battles:

Mine only real interest in the total war games is the battles themselves and its tactics while everything else serves only purpose for creating enough money for fielding many armies and in having access to better units, so it can somewhat reduce the fun factor of the games when the majority of the time goes to switching between multiple cities in order to build some new bulidings. Like for an example you mostly focus upon building first financial buildings, then military, and then happiness buildings in between, where it is much better to do it manually for more efficieny rather than by using the AI auto-manage feature which is rather slow and inadequate, but you are constrained into doing this while you do personally hate it above everything else. So I wish that there would be options open for the player to choose that there would be no need to govern settlements but each of them would automatically generate a certain income according to its value and size, along with that of providing a maximum number of units to be trained (like for an example that an each settlment would give the player about 8-12 maximum units to be recruited or for an upkeep). So the only thing which one could generally do about settlements would be to recruit some units, garrison or besiege them, and by moving some agents into it for some purpose. If this is not a practible option then I maybe you could rather customize it personally what prioritisation will be when constructing some type of buildings (like first financial, then military, then happiness) rather than by choosing some standardized options in the building menu. So regardless of which option, then its main aim is to spare the player from spending majority of his time in some repeatitive building management while he can focus more upon military decisions and battles, at least for those players which prefer it above all the other factors.

2. An option that players can choose between an two different periods which have a different configuration.

The Early period (272 BC to maybe 190 BC) is supposed to emphasis upon battles with a cheap and low tech units that range from military barracks level 1-3, along with that how the world map will be the same as default when there are a lot of rebel cities and factions have only a small territoriy each ready to expand. But the Later period (190 BC to end game) is supposed to emphasis upon battles with a medium to high tech units that range from military barracks 3-6, along with that how the world map is already divided between factions with their historical territory, but maybe a rebels can still exist in central and eastern europa. So I would suggest that in the years which belong to the Early period then all factions have access to all low and medium tech units which belong to it without any building to be made, when years of Later period do apply then all factions will lose access to early period units but have instead access to all units which are of higher technology without any buildings to be made. However if this is too strict then Later period should also have access to some better units from Early period which are not bound to any specific period of history.

For mine part then I never attempt again to conquer the victory condition settlements in order to win the Grand campaign, since only about 15 settlements are sufficient while everything beyond that reduces the fun factor of the game, but I have made it an habit of mine after some time to build as many balanced armies with a decent units until the economy goes to negative, save the game, and then just let each army travels the map in searching for other full stacked enemy armies in order to get thrill of battle (without besieging any settlements since the piched battles are most fun), and then reload the game and let mine armies go to another factions in other place of the map. But the game freezes and becomes corrupted in the long run when doing this, but I am not sure what causes it or

Hope these suggestions will help

So you want to play battles, but not the campaign? Then just play custom battles if you only want to play battles and also want to have top tier and reformed units at your disposal...

In addition to Mediolanicus' (well-made) points, I'd also like to point out that...

#1 isn't feasible, as it would require the team to change the game engine, which is impossible given the EB team's resources.

#2 isn't historically accurate as you describe it, since the "early period" and the "late period" were technologically almost identical. Some changes were made in tactics and equipment, but not enough to qualify one period as primative compared to the other. -M

At the risk of hijacking this thread, there are a few things I can think that vastly improve the game (at least for me):

#1 Massively reduce rebel spawns. It is no fun fighting 10 battles a turn vs rebels, and while in the midst of running the Roman Empire, to fight a battle when 2 units of Rorarri rebel next to a full stack of Legionaries. Much more fun to focus on the fights between yourself and the AI, full stack vs full stack, with results that actually mean something.

#2 Put an extra 10k per turn into the script for the AI and play on Medium instead of VH for the campaigns. You can actually make and keep treaties, and are not at war indefinitely with opponents. Also you don't just face armies of Mercs.

I know some people use the Force diplo mod, but that takes away from the randomness of the game for me.

#3 Give the AI governor's structure 100 to happiness, to prevent the problematic rebellion bug.


I've done all these (and much more) to my files, and the game is so much more fun.

I know that this 'Period' thing would not be historical, but it would be more like an additional gameplay option for those players which want to focus more upon action (like with these options before starting a campaign). Because for mine part then it is more important that the gameplay can be improved for the players rather than by focusing upon some minor issues in regard to historical accuracy which may be irrelevant in comparison to the bigger picuture of the gameplay itself. This game has already produced forth the main essence of historical accuracy in regard to its historical units based on regions, historical factions, how units in battle have more morale and fight much longer than in RTW vanillla, along with that how the map is extended into fielding more territory.

And finally, if the Eb team could create its own game from the scratch then they should rather empahsis upon making that product somewhat different than the RTW vanilla, like for an example by removing the building management feature but rather focus more upon having a new diplomacy feature and how it can be difficult to manage armies while moving them through territories (supplies, making camp, skirmishing, moving armies in proper formation to avoid ambushes....).

That is to scrap eB totally and make a brand new game on an over-populated sector of game producing. plus, they'd need hard-code, they'd need to make their own game engine... nah, I'd rather stick to EB!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

At the risk of hijacking this thread, there are a few things I can think that vastly improve the game (at least for me):

#1 Massively reduce rebel spawns. It is no fun fighting 10 battles a turn vs rebels, and while in the midst of running the Roman Empire, to fight a battle when 2 units of Rorarri rebel next to a full stack of Legionaries. Much more fun to focus on the fights between yourself and the AI, full stack vs full stack, with results that actually mean something.

#3 Give the AI governor's structure 100 to happiness, to prevent the problematic rebellion bug.


I've done all these (and much more) to my files, and the game is so much more fun.

---

Just seems too easy. The whole point of rebel spawns is that when you capture a province , you overstretch your ability to maintain strict control over all your empire and allow enemy factions to take advantage of trouble in your lands.

What i usually do is create an all ranged cav army that is mobile enough to cover half a continent and solve my rebel problems with minimal cost. The sauro mercs are very good for this if you can get them. 272 upkeep is a joke for such a unit.

I couldn't imagine the game without the province building aspect.

I also like the small battles.They allow you to develop tactics and get to know the strengths and weakness of different units and learn the controls better(and their limitations).

Though i doubt i have to worry about the modders here doing away with either..even if it was possible.

I've edite the script this way:

- reduced money assistance to rich factions (Romani, Seleukid, Ptolemaioi, Greeks, Macedon) from 20k to 10K - those factions either have the benefit of a positive financial balance from turn 1 (seleukid, ptoelmaio romani) , or could get insanely rich if they beat their immediate neighbors (macedon/greeks), they really don't need a huge money assistance. With that modification, AS has more difficulties keeping up with both eastern and western fronts, as it should, and ptolemaio no longer systematically steamroll antioch/mesopotamia. I was surprised myself but changing money assistance doesnt really permanently penalize those factions, it merely gives a chance for the smaller ones to shine in some games.

- reduced money assistance for lusitanian to 5K. Iberia is one of the richest province because of the mines, and more often than not lusitania usually conquer all the peninsula, and then proceed in steamrolling gauls/sweboz/romani with ease because of huge mine income+ money script. Reduced to 5K it takes ALOT more time for Lusatania to conquer eleutheroi in Iberia giving time for Carthage, Gauls and sometimes Romani to counter them. Ive tried many games this way and no, they don t get steamrolled by Carthago each time.
- removed most "date" requirements for reforms. Either subjective or modified for gameplay reasons, ingame date for most reforms annoy me, because by the time the late reforms fire up, either the campaign is over, or the world situation is a-historical, and either way i couldn't even enjoy them (sweboz and romani reforms especially)
- reduced settlements requirements for romani and simplied the acquisition of augustus/reformator traits.