Actually, wouldn't it be cool to use the three theatres in ETW and make them into Italy, Greece (including Makedonia) and Asia Minor? It would be like the pre-super-Romans and more like the actual warring city-states...
Printable View
Actually, wouldn't it be cool to use the three theatres in ETW and make them into Italy, Greece (including Makedonia) and Asia Minor? It would be like the pre-super-Romans and more like the actual warring city-states...
I'm not quite getting this theater concept.
But wouldn't making the three theatres Italy, Anatolia, and Greece mean that Africa, the steppes, Gaul, Iberia, Britain, and the rest of Asia have to be left out?
wait!
what of Chariots? are they simulable in ETW? and did the CA give a model limit?
also, I think its too early to chalk up concepts without at least knowing the engine in detail.
my 2 cents..
In the south there's Elis, Argos, Megalopolis, Corinth, Olympia, Sparta, and Messena.
Also, the Theatres should be China, N.America, and Central Africa. Romans vs Mezo Americans would be hilarious.
The ability to conquer the world with a sub-Saharan African faction would be kind of lame, though. I mean, some things are just not feasible. I'd leave certain cultures unplayable, I think, or at least with a severely nerfed tech tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulceber
Whoa there boys! We can't go about even considering expanding to China and the Americas until we know more details about the engine. Ibrahim has a point. Not to mention that the current map parameters provide more than enough substance for development. Also, just China alone would require at least 10 faction slots; Korea/Japan is 2 more; the eastern steppes (Xiongnu, Yuezhi, Wusun ...) at least 4 or more; India needs at least 4 ... you get the picture.
I have no idea whether chariots, catapults, slingers or javelin throwers are still possible for the ETW engine. I dearly hope so.
Desert also has a point about not leaving out the rest of the EB world just so that we can focus on what is a few people's favorite areas in Greece, Italy and Asia Minor. As I told Oudysseos, I hadn't heard about the theaters feature until today.
As to the unit and model limits ...? I hope they raised them. I was surprised to hear that there won't be a province limit any longer. I know that the EB team has at least 20-30 unit ideas that they wanted to include in EBI and EBII that they won't be able to (the number is pure speculation, but is based on comments over the years from EB members). Obviously, these units would take precedence over brand new unit ideas or units and faction from off of the current map.
Which brings us to the intriguing question of factions. We know that there are 50 factions; are they all playable? If so, should all them be used? As Oudysseos said earlier, it is hard enough to develop 30 factions let alone 50! So I wonder if the EB team would use all of these slots or if they leave some of them unused or for scripting purposes. Another consideration that has at least until now been consistantly rejected (and for good reason) by the EB team is the possibility of non-playable and emerging factions. If for some reason they decided to do this, there would be many new oppurtunities.
Another so far unmentioned issue is that of culture. This has been a constant and painful reminder to the EB team and all RTW/M2TW modders of the limits of the engines. Hopefully the culture limits will be raised.
Helpful input is welcome. Thank you
Chairman
The two theartes could be one of the current EB map and one of India and the territory of the Saka that wasn't on the EB map.:beam:
Yah, if there ever was an EB3 team (and that's a big if), I doubt that they would ever seriously consider expanding the scope to include the Americas or China. At most I could see the concept going on to include more of the Indian sub-continent and maybe a bit more of south-eastern Africa, but it is Europa Barbarorum after all.
Bigger is not necessarily better, especially for game play.
*bangs head on wall* Damn culture and religion limits! Makes everything much harder.Quote:
Another so far unmentioned issue is that of culture. This has been a constant and painful reminder to the EB team and all RTW/M2TW modders of the limits of the engines. Hopefully the culture limits will be raised.
EB is a realism mod, afterall, and would always remain one, if there ever was a EB 3 to be, and it is one of the first things to remember. Speculation about the existence or the amount of contact of ancient europe with regions like China or - more notably in this context - America is allowed, but the assumption of a successful military expedition is beyond anything conceivable.
EB 3, if it is going to be, should focus on a map of similar scope as the actual one and try to use the additional possibilities for more detail in that area.
It might be fun to fight meso-americans and chinese with roman legions, but that is a thing for a different mod, not for EB.
So, let's just hope that the Empires-engine allows for ancient combat and that a qualified team of modders will find to carry the torch of Europa Barbarorum even beyond EB II.
Sorry if I'm repeating something already said, I haven't read all.
Right you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lysimachos
All the features sounds interesting and promising, but has anyone thought about time. Not the ingame one, but the real amount of time it takes to make a mod as grand as EB. How long it took to make EB? I was not around when it started, but I think it should be something like 3 years. Now the team is in process of making EBII. A lot of the data is already available from EB, but still it is going to require a lot of time till the mod is ready.
Now consider ETW. It is entirely different concept. Modern warfare, very different from ancient. Even if the engile is easily modable it is going to take huge amount of time to convert it to ancient period. We do not even know when EBII is going to be ready and any thoughts about making EBIII with ETW engine may only start after the EBII is out.
In my opinion it is much more feasible that after ETW there is going to be something like RomeII:TW, which means that this engine might be much more suitable for EBIII (if there is going to be such at all). With this in mind making EB on ETW engine sounds entirely inefficient. But I guess we need to wait and see what future holds.
You know, EB has been so successful, that if Sega decided to make a Rome II: Total War, it might be possible that the EB team could give them all their research and Rome II would BE EBIII. -M
This whole thread has been about wishful thinking, but this is taking it to the extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulceber
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Which doesn't mean that these aren't all very exciting ideas (although some of them are clearly not suited for a mod like EB), but let's wait and see what ETW turns out to be first before talking about modding it and let's wait for EBII before talking about EBIII.
I agree, but why is that necessarily a bad thing? We can always speculate and dream. It's not like we're planning on developing anything, just thinking about the future.Quote:
This whole thread has been about wishful thinking, but this is taking it to the extreme.
Also, I disagree with the statement that EB is too historical for most audiences. I've seen a lot of people here who came in with no knowledge of history who ended up loving EB. Even gaming magazines have played it and said it feels like a whole new game and is an improvement on the original RTW. I could easily see people buying into a truly accurate version of R2TW. -M
I never said that was a bad thing. I said there were some great ideas in here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulceber
I'm dreaming of playing a grand world campaign with the depth of EB, or just playing EB on a better game engine too.
True, but you are forgetting that EB is for free. I doubt as many people would give it a try when it costs you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulceber
Besides, wardogs, flamings pigs, ninja Romans, etc.. were in RTW with a reason. It adds to the "coolness-factor" of the game.
EB may be 1000 times better than RTW vanilla, but IMHO RTW vanilla still has a greater audience.
I secretly hope you are right and I am wrong though :embarassed:.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It would be great Sega actually used EB's knowledge, but they probably wouldn't, because of paying issues. Also that would be awesome to have huge map to china, but that might cause further ctd problems for people with slow or older computers.
I don't understand the hostility of an EB3 having the Americas. If you have the native american cultures why not just make the victory conditions taking over their respective regions or just the Americas. you don't have to have cross atlantic invasions for a victory.
Is it true that triremes fall apart unless you clean them on shore every couple of weeks?
If so, then how people ever get any sailing done?
What I would like to see regarding the map is not the scope but the size of the map. At the moment Korinthos and Sparta takes 2/5 of the Peloponnese (the actual city models on campaign map). What if they would take only 1/15 or 1/20 of Peloponnese? The map would be huge. This would lead to alot more field battles and less sieges. IMHO it would be a huge improvement for gameplay. Tactical maneuvering would make sense then.
That would be awesome having greece be so huge. That way you could have so many other cities like argos, elis, Olympia ect.
That is a good point Silence Hunter. Indeed the EB team has already mentioned that EBII will have a larger map with the same parameters.
I have been thinking over what would be priorities to add for EB3 in terms of what new features or expanded limits are available. The format is: "- addition (provisional requirement) [status of requirement]". From most important to least:
-adding provinces to India (higher province limit) [mostly confirmed]
-adding leftover units from EBI/then EBII (higher unit limit) [unknown]
-adding leftover factions from EBI/then EBII (higher faction limit) [confirmed]
-adding more cultures, within current map (higher culture limit) [unknown]
-adding provinces to Mesopotamia, Persia, and the Steppes (higher province limit) [mostly confirmed]
-adding units to existing factions (higher unit limit) [unknown]
-expanding the map to include more of India and the eastern Steppe (higher province limit/higher culture limit/higher unit limit/higher faction limit) [mostly confirmed/unknown/unknown/confirmed]*
-adding factions to India and the Steppe; Mauryans and/or Yuezhi (higher faction limit) [confirmed]*
-utilizing the theaters feature for various regions (new theaters feature) [mostly confirmed]
....
much later....
-adding beyond the current map in terms of provinces, factions, units ...etc (higher province, faction, unit, and culture limits) [varying confirmations]**
*These two changes would require the EB team to alter a long held, iron-strong policy of not using un-playable and/or emerging factions and/or off-map factions. This is why the expansion of the map precedes the addition of these factions.
**This is much, much further in the future, well after EB3 has become stable and possibly after the EB3 1.0 version. Don't cry yet. You can be assured that as soon as the first official (or unofficial) beta of EB3 is released that somebody will mod it to include Aboriginees, Inuits, Zulu and Chinese.
Chairman
Will never exist in this universe.
What do you mean?
Because, if the ocean is not meant to be crossed, it would be a waste to have both continents. One mod for europe and one mod for america would be much more efficient than one mod for both, in terms of still existing limits and gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Speaking for myself, it's not hostility, but
a. too much work
and mostly
b. not enough known about the cultures of the americas in this time period.
American factions and units and so on for the 3rd century BCE would be guesswork, fantasy, and extreme interpolation of a spotty archaeological record.
Doesn't fit the EB ethos of historical accuracy.
I agree, I think expanding into India would be good, China would probaly be to far but expanding the map into India could be a good idea.
And about factions, everyone in the game could be a faction but would be just like Eleutheroi but would behave more realistic and would only have units that Eleutheroi would have normally had if they held the area. Good idea?
I think the Americans lacked the geographical and natural resources to form/sustain large empires. No horses, no oxen, none of the big crops from Asia. (all important factors in the eventual development of the Asian/European cultures) not to mention a longitudinal continent which discouraged the spread of people/crops/ideas. It might be kind of a crippled campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Probably for the same reason you shouldn't be able to control Germania: what exactly are you ruling?
Unless, of course, you have the option of constructing cities in ETW *drools*.
Interesting thought. But Germania at least had all of the ingredients for success at that time. The EB model of ruling one tribe makes enough sense, I suppose: One tribe may extend it's influence over larger and larger swaths of Germania.Quote:
Originally Posted by desert
Have you forgotten the Aztecs and Incas? Granted, it was extremely feudal, but still an empire. The Iroquois aren't an empire, but we only use factions in Total War.