Printable View
No. Since our mods contain a fair few same files, the one installed later naturally overwrites those of the earlier.
"Manually replacing" as in opening the .rar and dragging-and-dropping the desired file (in this case the export_descr_unit.txt) into the target location, in this case the main EB folder so it replaces the Citymod EDU already there.
Any known issues with Casse recruitment with this mod? I have installed this over Cunctators latest, and in the Casse campaign I started I cant recruit anything other than Luguoe, Iosatae, Garaoas, Botaroas and Cidanh. Even in my capital, type 1 gov, fully upgraded MIC (and all the other buildings built just in case), I still cant build anything else. No Calware, no Rycalware, no Cwmyr, no elites of any description...
The only changes I have made was to change the rebel spawn rate to 999, but that should not affect recruitment...
The Celtic factions can't recruit too much else before the reforms, can they ? And the Cwmyr are Midlanders - you need to get away from Camulosadae (specifically, to the provinces of central Britain - sic) to recruit them and later on many of the other "hero" units IIRC.
The only recruitement alteration I did was the minor one with the Hai catas.
My bad. I have now reached 220 BC and they are all available. I assumed that at least the Calware were early units. Its a bit annoying, as I managed to unite the British Isles using only militia units. Now I have my elites, I have no one left to fight... Except the gauls...
I feel your pain brother! I want to invade gaul with some nice elites, but I'm stuck with the same 4 troop types.
I believe installing this mod first and the city mod second would work, there should be no problems. The couple of changes to the EDB made in this mod would be lost, but some are included in the city mod anyways...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfshart
Hmmm well I may have to reinstall then. Here is what I did. I installed EB on clean RTW. Then installed the first cohort mod and the city mod. I just extracted then to the main RTW folder so I think it worked. Unless I should have installed them into the EB folder. :dizzy2: Then I installed watchmans mod and extracted into the main RTW folder which seems it should be extracted into the EB folder instead but since watchman pointed out the manual install of the EDU file it may have worked out fine since I was able to just drag and drop from the RTW folder to the EB folder. The only side effect is that I now have all watchmans files just just chilling doing nothing in the main RTW folder. :juggle2: It appears to be working but I can't really tell if the mods "took" or not. I'm new to all this modding stuff so sorry for my noobishness.
I think you extract the files into your EB data folder. I did the same thing as you, then I say the EB data folder had the same stuff in it, and that's the folder that counts...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfshart
Well, putting them files in the main RTW "data" folder alone would mean they'd only have any effect if you fired up the vanilla campaign. Which more likely than not should promptly CTD.
If you start the game through one of those whatchamacallit shortcut thingies with the "-mod:" switch (in this case, "-mod:EB") in the command line syntax, the game will look first in the specified sub-folder (in this case "EB") for whatever it needs and only default to searching the main data folder if it can't find the file it's looking for there.
So, basically, unless you've extracted our mods' files into the EB folder they shouldn't be doing you one bit good as the game won't be even looking at them, but the plain EB files there.
I think I did it right, because I see the changes ("Can Swim" and "Can Form Shield Wall" as well as some stat changes).
Sounds about correct, that.
Aye I get all that but I don't plan on playing Vanilla at all so no worries there. I installed it as I posted above and it works i.e. installed 1.)First Cohort Mod 2.) City Mod 3.) Drag and dropped your export_descr_unit.txt into the main EB folder (yes to all). Now I have not gotten any CTD at all however I did notice that some of my units got shield wall but the button graphic for it is messed up but it still work though. I didn't notice if anyone got "can swim" but I haven't been near water yet for a battle. :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
"Can Swim" should be listed on the unit info panels. Anyway, you can fix the issue with the shieldwall button graph by copy-pasting one BI file over its equivalents in the EB folder, but right now I admittedly don't feel like looking it up. It was mentioned in one of the "EB with BI"-type threads lying around here though.
*scratch head*
Wonder if I should include that in a v3 if I make one some day ?
Ah, found it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
That's a lot of shield wall units. I assume that by "a fair few militia/levy type spear units with decent-sized shields" you mean units like the Lugoae and the Frankamannoz. I think they don't deserve the shield_wall, the fact that the EB team gave them rabble formations should indicate that they're basicly el-cheapo infantry good only for stalling and fighting off the lightest of cavalry, not locking shields and taking the brunt of an attack.Quote:
- the shield_wall formation has been added to a fair few units. These include all the "classical" hoplites and their ilk such as the Carthie heavy spearmen and the various versions of Hypaspistai (the Pheraspidai, who if I've understood correctly are really Hypas in different gear, also get it by this token as they'll anyway have been trained for it), a fair few militia/levy type spear units with decent-sized shields (as this sort of formation is fairly easy to use and perfect for relatively poorly trained infantry whose main job is lineholding), and quite a few "barbarian" units whose description suggested they should be able to form a very solid front to blunt enemy charges or similar such as the Belgae Milnaht and Gaisazharjoz. I've also given it to the Eastern "sparabara"-type spearmen as well as the more capable Babylonian heavies and Armenian royal guard types, as both have hoplite-type shields well suited for it and the descriptions suggested they should be able to present very solid fronts as necessary.
I'd approach it negatively, that is, wich units would do fine versus frontal attacks but would do significantly worse if flanked or on walls?
Yesterday I got BI working with EB but I haven't played around with the formations yet. The following I'd consider giving this ability, in descending order:
-hoplitai, and its various derivatives and copies*
-Frámáhárjoz, Háruskoz-Swáiut and Gáizáhárjoz and the Arjos (Arverni unit)
-Neitos, Rycalawre and the Solduros
-Belgae Batacorii, Milnaht, Cemmeinarn (Midland spears)
-Noricene Gaecori, Aljáz-Gae, Gaeroas, Gaelaiche, Hábuko-z Swáiut
Then there's several units wich fought in a dense formation, but for reasons mentioned and unmentioned don't qualify for the shield wall IMO. This includes most legionaries, thureophoroi and thorakitai and rabble units like the Lugoae.
*includes the triarii, the Libyan imitation-hoplites, Hypaspistai and probably the Pherispidai. I'm not sure about the Babylonian infantry and the Armenian royals.
Locking shields and forming a dense solid mass was one of the more common ways for el cheapo infantry to serve as decent lineholders, AFAIK. A basic static, defensive shieldwall is easy enough for even poorly trained troops to do, and tended to take some effort even for elite troops to break frontally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
Rather like the pike phalanx really.
The normal Roman infantry order was only "dense" compared to for example most Celtic longswordmen; hoplites and phalangites for example were massed more densely, and in a straight clash AFAIK tended to have the same sort of "three to two" local numerical advantage the Romans had to the more freewheeling "barbarian" warriors. Thureophoroi and their heavier colleagues follow the same tactical philosophy (ie. relatively open order for flexibility and particularly cross-country maneuverability).Quote:
Then there's several units wich fought in a dense formation, but for reasons mentioned and unmentioned don't qualify for the shield wall IMO. This includes most legionaries, thureophoroi and thorakitai and rabble units like the Lugoae.
That seems to apply more to cheap semi-proffessionals like Gaeroas and Batacorii. Not every unit that carries a spear and a large shield would be disciplined enough to mantain a cohesive shield wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Of course.Quote:
The normal Roman infantry order was only "dense" compared to for example most Celtic longswordmen; hoplites and phalangites for example were massed more densely, and in a straight clash AFAIK tended to have the same sort of "three to two" local numerical advantage the Romans had to the more freewheeling "barbarian" warriors. Thureophoroi and their heavier colleagues follow the same tactical philosophy (ie. relatively open order for flexibility and particularly cross-country maneuverability).
Unit choices aside, do you agree that units wich get the shield wall should get a minor decrease in their defense value?
Cool! So just copy pasting that will fix the graphic? Hmm thats easier then I thought it would be. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
In my experience, yes. No unwanted side effects either, far as I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfshart
It was pretty standard "spear levy" stuff AFAIK. Keep in mind that the likes of Lugoae are from the relatively "heavy" and static end of the tribal levy, the equipement suggesting they're trained to fight in relatively close order and fairly defensively. The shortsword guys and missile troops are examples of lighter, open-order infantry, the former presumably rather aggressive too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
As for discipline, well, I didn't do a thinkg to the morale values of most units (ie. low-class militias still crack pretty fast in a tight spot) and IIRC the Lugoae are Impetuous so they may indeed fail to hold their position properly. AFAIK this kind of getting carried away was a fairly common problem with even levies in warrior cultures like the Celts, although the exact psychological pressures behind the impetuousness were a bit different from those of the warrior class proper.
Feel free to modify your copy if that's what you feel like. As mentioned I haven't made any real efforts to check the alterations for balance, and due to some hardware problems haven't been putting in too many playing hours as of late (I'm actually just now modifying my game for starting again).Quote:
Unit choices aside, do you agree that units wich get the shield wall should get a minor decrease in their defense value?
Perhaps even levy troops would instinctively form a 'shield wall'. Their weakness would be a decreased morale value (or whatever makes units rout easier)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
A shield wall is no 'special formation' like a phalanx, rather the most simple static battle formation. Any man, levied into the army, would seek the (relative) protection of his neighbour.
A shield wall should be an increased value only counting for the whole group. Defence value should be the defence of the soldier himself (shield, armour, skill)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
Does a shield wall give a unit's defence an unworldly boost anyway?
I did not give the shield wall formation to units with long swords, such as Milnaht or Botroas. Rycalawre and Solduros do have it, since they're hightly trained warbands which only draw their swords after their formation is broken and their spears lost. Calawre, being individual heroes (for EB's sake gathered in a unit) didn't fight in such an organisation, cf their long swords.
Neither did I give it to the especially designed flexible professional spear units, such as Thureophoroi and Thorakitai (Hellenic armies don't need an ersatz phalanx on the flanks of the Makedonian ones, rather good flanking units) Legionnairies should have them, however I think they should be more flexible, so it'd be a bad idea. EB gave them nice stats anyway to justify them fighting without shield wall.
Thanks for the icon fix, Watchman, I was looking for it!
I don't think units can be given two special formations though, and the legionaires already have the testudo as their "special trick" don't they ? I know they did sometimes fight in very close order, but that was in rare special cases such as against massed Sarmatian lancers and as in that instance the front ranks also used spears that one would really rather better be simulated by using Auxilia (who might qualify for the shieldwall - IIRC I didn't give it to them, but...).
Ah yes, of course, sorry. Forgot about the Testudo :wacko: never play as Romans, and I tend to crush them before they get it...
Does the shield wall give more protection from aerial attacks (in the front)? Units I use the shieldwall on in my campaign are too low levelled to notice, but is it better? I was thinking that the testudo was some evoluated and disciplined form of the 'ordinary' levy shield wall to protect against arrows...
Well, most of the units that were given the shieldwall have pretty decent Shield scores to begin with and I doubt if the formation particularly hurts, anymore than the phalanx does. I always avoid shooting at such units' shielded sides anyway so I can't say I knew if there was a major difference though.
Lugoae and the like still seem to hurt from precursor javelins, but whether it's more or less than what they'd suffer outside the shieldwall I haven't the foggiest about.
One advantage I can see the Testudo having is that it seems to have shields on about all sides (maybe not the rear though), so it avoids the flank-fire vulnerability issue densely packed formations have. 'Course, I understand units in Testudo are also in serious trouble if engaged in melee so...
It was a siege-assault approach formation after all.
Yeah, in a real battle the testudoe has limted uses, but in a seige it's good for attacking fire away from vuneraable units.
...handy for fighting eastern armies, especially horse archers!Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
Question for Watchman..Do you also add shiltrom and berserker abilities to certain units in your modified EDU??..If not will you be in a form of an update?
The schiltrom is in my experience largely useless anyway, and berserk I was never too fond of. Warcry does the job well enough IMO. So, no.
But of course you're free to further modify your download and add them to whichever units you see fit - all it requires is finding the unit entry in the EDU and some typing.
As for updates, I just now learned what exactly the vanilla EB "can form shieldwall" thingy meant - namely, a clever tweak of the unit's formation line that quite simply uses a tighter formation for the second setting, rather than looser which is what you normally get from clicking the "loose order" button. Learning this immediately made me wonder if I should redo the whole damn thing all over again, as the BI shieldwall does have some issues, and it'd let certain barbarian units combine warcry and "locked shields". Plus I've noticed a few random oversights here and there which vaguely annoy me and I could fix at the same time - I'm a bit perfectionist about my work that way.
I just kinda wonder if the tactical AI can actually use the EB shieldwall thingy. With suitable formation files (I use these, myself - speaking of which I should probably ask Thorlof if I could integrate them into the next version of this thing...) it does use the BI shieldwall at least, if not necessarily well.
Opinions ? Should I redo the EDU at least and take the BI shieldwall off at least some of the units that have the EB tight secondary formation, especially some of the barbarians who could then get the warcry instead ? Or would people prefer the BI one as it now is ?
Thanks for the quick response Watchman. Just downloaded your files and now looking thru them. Specifically the EDU. I'm about to start a campaign using the BI.exe and needed an EDU that took advantage of the BI.exe. When i found your thread here in the Unofficial Modding Projects. Thank god too..I thought i would have to edit my whole EDU myself :wall: I wanted the EDU to pretty much stay the same as the .81a EDU with just the added BI.exe abilities and maybe an alteration here or there but nothing too drastic stat wise that would in all likelihood thow the game out of wack from a balance perspective. I'm too lazy and didn't want to do this myself..Thankfully i found your work.
As for redoing your EDU based on what you just now found out in vanilla EB..
I say yes...Especially if your just gonna do it for the barbarians who could then get the warcry instead. Just leave the Hoplites alone. :2thumbsup:
You're welcome. :bow: Although as a disclaimer I'll caution you that the relatively minor alterations I've done may not be exactly balanced either, and I have some doubts about the BI shieldwall in particular in that regard - never had the time and patience to do any real testing, after all. :sweatdrop:
I've played around a bit with the shield_wall feature, I haven't found any significant issues with it (other than that the AI won't use it)
About the EB shield wall solution (use the loose order-button to create a dense formation), I find that it doesn't work to well, even in guard mode the German spear guys will break formation. I wouldn't be surprised to if the AI uses the formation when a unit comes under missile attack :dizzy2:
In my EDU I've only given the shield_wall feature to units that used this dense formation (hoplites mostly plus a couple of barbarians)