Printable View
When you have been in a war with a faction and manage to have peace with them..Its always seems to be a very short peace, becasue they always seems to attack as fast as they can. My question is...is it possible to have peace for a longer time or for ever with a faction?
My second question is...Is it possible to have more help by an ally in a war than it is to day? An ally to day dosent care much if I are attacked.
How will EB do with does problem??
~:cheers:
Sorry for my bad english..
Yeah, you could make it so that it is -compulsory- to break an alliance before you can even have the option to attack an ally. Or you must have a diplomat making a real declaration of war before you can attack a neutral. And alliance agreements must be binding, for say 10 turns, before you can even opt to cancel alliance.
I don't know for sure, but it seems like AI vs. AI alliances seem to be a little more realistic than AI vs. Human alliances (which the AI often has no problems breaking at any time). Doing test runs I am fairly happy with what the AI vs. AI diplomacy is doing in EB so far, but I'll admit that when I do play RTW the whole alliance thing does get me irritated too. I don't know what can really be done about it. There may be some guys in the mod who do have answers, but I don't know what they'd be and I'm not particularly optimistic.
I hope that they will figure out a way to mod these bugs. Because if they manage to do so the hole game will high several levels.
agree !
but there is no chance to improve the diplomacy
like everyone I am hugely impressed with the weekly faction updates. The skins, map details and new buildings are going to make this one fine looking mod.
I also have faith that the team will address the famous bugs (horse archers etc) as far as they can within the limits of hard coding + tone down the arcade strye 'warp speed' combat.
What I would really love to see in EB is a serious improvement to diplomacy and economics. Playing as the germans, seeing my toga clad diplomat wandering round the world trying to 'sell my map' in the attempt to raise enough money to recruit one extra unit takes away and feeling for the realism of the period. Hving tribal nations such as the germans, britons and scythians unable to field armies because they can't build a big enough city to support them is just.....wrong.
I could only agree with you...*I realy hope they mod this huge bugs*
Diplomacy is hard coded.
Is it possible to make the Hellenic factions more likely to seek to open peace negotiations after they have inflicted a major defeat on an enemy? This is what Pyrrhus, Hannibal, and the Macedonians did when fighting the Romans, though each time Rome responded by ordering them to concede total defeat, regardless of the current situation- and so of course, the war continued. Can the genteel attitude to warfare of the Hellenic factions be reflected in Europa Barbarorum?
Hard coded......disappointing but never mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
Hope there is more scope for 'economics' changes, e.g. why is sea trading so much more profitable than trade caravans coming down the spice/silk trails? (sore point with me having regularly run dry of money playing the Parthians on Hard)
Also trying to raise money to stay above water as the Germans is a nightmare. I understand that 'money' in the game is meant to be something of an abstract but it does seem to work against the 'non-city dwelling' factions (especially those without easy access to sea trading).
I can understand that Roman soldiers & architect/builders (and presumably Greek and Carthaginian ones) needed to be paid for their labour, but thought that celtic, germanic, scythian etc factions should be able to raise a sizeable army and throw up wooden buildings for a quick campaign without needing a money/trade/economics based infrastructure?
Actually, a money-based infrastructure was important to Celts (just being pedantic, it's the EB way). I don't know about Germans and the like, but Celtic leaders had little power outside of the military; mounting tiers of 'senate'-like organizations of citizens of a kingdom voted on pretty much everything, and laborers were generally paid (Celtic coinage was so widespread because of their necessity to pay soldiers and workers); people couldn't just be ordered around by a despot, due to a series of early checks and balances; this format, mixed with Greek governmental forms, led to what we recognize today as the democratic republic (you could argue it's based on Saxon law from Britain, but that was merely aping Celtic law anyway, due to the huge number of culturally Celtic people under their rule at the time, mixed with a kind of despotism that Saxons practiced before conquering Britain). They differ from Romans and such in that they had no 'payscale'; everyone was paid based on the quality of their work, so no such thing as a salary existed. Better warriors and soldiers (and there was a difference; technically the 'warrior' was a part-time soldier, much like modern 'reservists', and soldiers did nothing but serve in the military) were paid more; likewise, a better construction laborer would recieve compensation for superior work. It's notable also, in Celtic law, that if something broke, one could sue (the modern terminology) the crafter; the argument would be based on if the owner had been negligent or otherwise led to the destruction of the purchased object, or if the crafter had simply been careless and the object broke due to creator failure. Anyway, as it boils down, paid labor for Celts is extremely important. Even slaves were paid (though common courtesy demanded far less; they were usually paid by good graces of their masters, who would recieve the payment, and reward his slaves based on the quality of work; many Celtic laws from various regions point that a slave must be paid SOMETHING, assuming he's done any work, but that doesn't mean it necessarily has to be that much).
Everyone assumes Celts were warriors purely (and this brings to mind despotism; a kind of 'rule by strength' concept, which is misconcieved). This misconception comes about because the most extensive accounts in writing come from the Romans, who did little but fight with them, but it ignores the huge trade economy they generated, and a great number of important, but easily overlooked, notations. Celtic kings attracted additional soldiers by promising slight pay 'bonuses', greater than opposing kings. They funded these by trade networks; Bibrax, Gergovia, Camologos, Camolodunum, Menapia, and numerous other cities were major trade centers and generated trade income comparable to mediteranean traders. Even the name 'Briton' comes from nothing that they were tin traders (and extremely wealthy because of it). The favored coinage metal of Celts was silver, more valued than gold (gold was valued, but more as ornamentation; too rare to form a solid coinage system around it). It can be argued best, based on both written and archaeological sources, that, while they were a 'warrior' culture, Celts were at the same time a merchant people. They traded with everyone, including their enemies; the Romans were at one time considered jealous of the wealth of Gaul, and one joke said an ambitious Gallic king was considering buying the city of Rome, but felt it was too small for his ambitions. Celts were coinists and adored rare metal; Brennos demanded his weight in gold to leave Rome. Huge coin hordes are found all over Gaul, Britain, and Ireland; presumably hidden treasure troves to be used as fallbacks, or as a kind of 'retirement fund'; Celtic kings rarely served out their whole life as king. When one was incapable of commiting to open combat, they were then on ineligible to be king (since the 'king' is not a monarch as in the feudal era, but an elected military and vaguely administrative leader). So, an elderly or crippled former king might want something he and his family could fall back on. Clearly, coins were important; money was important. Everyone needed it, and all of society was based on the silver coin in some way; Celts traded other things though too. Weapons and armor were very valuable, as were horses, chariots (for war, but also travel, and just for show), livestock, crops, pets of all kinds, especially exotic ones (an ancient Celtic king in Ireland had a baboon, likely from a Carthaginian trade partner as a coronation gift), etc. In Ireland and Wales, since the law existed long enough to be commited to paper (so we don't rely on second and third hand accounts of non-Celts), we get a better look at what exactly Celts thought of trade and payment. Kings and other 'nobles' (since Celtic nobility is more of a business based aristocracy), to be elected, were expected, often, to own their own business, be able to afford to pay most of the soldiers through it (Celts taxed, but they weren't fond of it and tried to keep taxes low), be able to afford feasts and events, always be ready and able to pay back debts, or fines if they were sued, etc.; these requirements again point to the importance of money, and, because of that, trade. So, the Celts were clearly a trade and business based economy (and culture, in a large sense, during the period depicted in EB and later). As for other barbarian cultures, the Iberians I do believe were, but of Germans and the like, I have no idea.
This is why I love EB....despite being a keen history fan there is always something new to learn. "Hammer Troops" sounds like pure Conan yet the team can back them up with sources and now details of celtic economics!!
Please tell me that this knowledge is going to be factored into the mod. I still find in the vanilla game that Rome and the Hellenic nations can practically pull money off the trees and as money = troops = troop upgrades they can advance faster to better units.
Maybe I am just rubbish at playing the "barbarian" (excuse the term) nations, but with the vanilla economic system I have to cut every corner to field a small number of german spearmen + the occasional axeman, spending every turn keeping just out of debt, whilst playing as a "civilized" faction once the first two ports are built you are making money like a bandit!
I believe we're moving away from basing the economy and structures in general on city size; we're moving more toward "Do you have the time and money to do it?". That's the true factor in development of anything. The number of people is helpful, but if you have the money to blow on expansion, you can just bring in people to work. This also allows lower tier cities (since it's hardcoded that barbarians can only reach 'minor city' in development) to develop effective trade networks; not every trade hub had to be massive (though most did grow somewhat large, but being 'huge' wasn't really a necessity; that's in reverse, a place was a trade hub and THEN grew, usually).
~:cheers:
Good to know that you guys are on the case.
The new skins, map and buildings look outstanding, likewise the detailed research behind them. I was keen to know what thought had gone into upgrading the actual gameplay...at least as much as you can within the constraints of hard coding.
I stopped playing RTW some while back and dusted off MTW, waiting until EB is finished. I look at Vanilla RTW as a beautiful looking animated screensaver...superb battle/siege graphics & lovingly created detail on the campaign map, but too much concession to arcade gamers has crept in since MTW.
My hope is that EB has given the same high standard of thought to game mechanics that you have to the graphics and historical accuracy.
Keep up the good work.