Printable View
I don't speak for the team, but its sounds a bit too complicated to do in M2TW.Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
There was something like that in EB1, but it didn't work very well, so it only triggered if the player was playing an Eastern faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
Aztec sounds really wrong. Could the team comment on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
My finding regarding the mechanics of the Routs condition is in post #79 - it should lay to rest further speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Apologies if my responses came across as harsh - in my view player's actions that the AI is not capable of are simply exploits and a very good reason has to exist why I would entertain it.
Upkeep is a matter of individual unit entries in the EDU file - if the unit is restricted to a certain culture or faction then there is no problem to change the value.Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
Bribing is a global setting and the only thing that I imagine might have an individual influence on the monetary amount is diplomatic skill.
Giving one faction a large army (multiple stacks) and strong rebel forces as opponents in their regions more often then not results in an attack on other settlements and not on the rebel stacks, something that could seriously mess up game play.
I am not aware of any Aztec structures in the latest version.Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
I took the advise of Ludens. I took a deep breath, and feel better for it. I am sorry for any part I had in making this discussion confrontational.
Gigantus: Please, please, stop with the tests. You have better things you can be doing with your time.
You don't need to prove to me or anyone how the engine deals with routs or withdrawals or anything. I know Ludens seems interested in them as an intellectual exercise, and if that is why you are doing them fine, but for me, it is not important, or germane, to know all bitty-gritty details.
And Arjos, you can stop trying to make things plainer to me. I told you, I understood your points all along.
I could not care less about how the engine handles routs or the withdrawal button.
If you guys feel that the act of withdrawing is some sort of exploit, despite the fact that it was clearly intended as part of the original game, that is fine -- who cares how it is actually implemented in game code? Using the rout routines, or some part of them, as far as I am concerned, is a perfectly reasonable shortcut for the TW programming team.
Also, I have no problems with the AI deploying its reinforcement in a different method than an actual human player. After all, it would be silly to ask an AI: "Do you want to have the AI control your reinforcements, or control them yourself?"
I admit also that the way they get around the human's limitation of having only 20 unit cards, by allowing the human to withdraw some units from the battlefield to bring in fresh troops, I admit that all is a bit of a kludge, and, somewhat "ahistoric."
To call it an exploit is a bit extreme, seeing as there is no advantage to the human player here -- it takes a long time to get those units off the field, and fresh troops into the fight, while the AI brings in all his reinforcements fast, in formation, almost ready for the fight.
But if you want to call it some kind of exploit that's fine, it is really a small, petty, point to me.
What I was really trying to argue, is that to change the original intent of the game, no matter how implemented, because you want to preserve a certain trait that you have introduced, was an important decision, and it should depend on the value of the trait you were introducing – is this trait worth making changes in the way the original game is actually played?
Unless, of course, it was your original intent to try and discourage players from using the withdraw button – but that would be a bit of a sleekit way of going about it, and I don't believe for a minute you were hatching Machiavellian plots to change the behavior of players.
So is this trait important enough to change the nature of the game?
And my argument from the beginning (one that you have ignored, aside from Gigantus originally calling it “BS”), is that a “cowardice” trait is unrealistic and ahistoric. It is a silly trait, and, in my opinion, a bit “high school”. Arjos, the only thing you say in response, is the imperious “we want the trait,” – as if I have no right to question this decision. That sort of implies you invite criticism so long as it does not question any decisions you have already made. If that is indeed your stance and policy, then make that clear, and I will not waste my time making these points.
Presuming it it not, I will make the following points (to back my assertion that a “cowardice” trait is unhistoric), and then, I really have nothing more to say on the subject.
If a general withdrew from a battle, back in Rome, a general's enemies might snicker privately “coward”, but those enemies would be snickering about other stuff even if the general had a “heroic” success. But politically, success or failure over the campaign was what really counted. No one cared whether Varus cut a brave figure when he marched without scouts into the Teutoburg forest, they just called him incredibly stupid and incompetent when he lost the legions. No one, even in Rome, questioned Hannibal's courage for losing and withdrawing so many battles --they admired, respected, and hated him for how he recovered and came back doubly strong.
Generals should have every right to withdraw from a battlefield without penalty of stigma, and historically they often did. Whether we call it a “withdrawal” or a “rout” depends on how much control and order the general maintains during the retreat. If some units, or even all of them, even the general's own bodyguard, “rout”, without the generals order to do so, perhaps that shows the general has trouble inspiring courage or otherwise controlling his men, and perhaps he deserves censor for that – you could strip him of a star, for instance – but as you have taken great lengths to prove, I doubt the game engine is sophisticated enough for you to distinguish between a withdrawal and a total rout, and frankly, I don't think such a persnickety censor is worth the trouble. The game already gives the player a disapproving scroll, and perhaps other censors, for losing the battle.
Anyway, as I said in my last entry, this is really a small thing. If you want to hang onto the “Coward” trait, who am I to take it from you? For all I know it might be a favored baby of one of you, and that person spent precious time coding it and making sure it worked, and now is hurt or offended that it has caused this little controversy. If this is true, I am sorry. I really do appreciate all the time you spend on this mod.
Regards,
Cruin.
I finished my tests before Ludens even asked for it https://i290.photobucket.com/albums/...ons/tongue.gif
It's actually one of the things I do for the EBII team, testing is also one of the reasons why I put together my basic mod set up that I used for this test.
This was later expanded\complimented by allowing the player basic direct control over his re-inforcements. It was initially fudged by game mechanics until mods started using the unlimited_men_on_battlefield = 1 switch in the CFG file. It means that all re-inforcements enter the battle field shortly after the battle starts and that the player has limited control over them, individual unit commands are not possible - only general stance and movement of the army can be controlled. Which, I suppose, is roughly how reality might have been.Quote:
I admit also that the way they get around the human's limitation of having only 20 unit cards, by allowing the human to withdraw some units from the battlefield to bring in fresh troops, I admit that all is a bit of a kludge, and, somewhat "ahistoric."
I high lighted the main criteria (I have a number of 'should' wishes myself for the game - none of which can be implemented) - the game simply cannot distinguish between a 'natural' and a 'forced' withdrawal.Quote:
Generals should have every right to withdraw from a battlefield without penalty of stigma, and historically they often did.
As you pointed out, even if it was an ordered withdrawal the general might have been censored. The 'coward' trait actually removes command points (stars) at higher levels, but that would take more then just one withdrawal\rout.
Don't fret - this was actually one of the more easier trait sets and I can assure you no one has personal feelings about it.Quote:
For all I know it might be a favored baby of one of you, and that person spent precious time coding it and making sure it worked, and now is hurt or offended that it has caused this little controversy. If this is true, I am sorry.
The use of the "Routs" condition to apply a negative trait\reduction of trait level is actually as old as the game itself - in 'vanilla' it reduces the dread\chivalry rating. (triggers battle3Chivalry_Dread_Routing and battle3Chivalry_Dread_Routing2)
The rebel should be very ferocious.If players dont attack them.They will attack players.It is a things of conqueror or conquered.If players attack other settlement without defeat the rebel in his settlement .They will lose their homeQuote:
Originally Posted by Gigantus
Could you change the space that army can move?If they are in a enemys province for too much time,they will have the difficulty of finding food.They will get the traits of short of supply.They cant move far because they need a lot of time to search food.I think supply line should be add to the game if the game want to be historical
Modifying AI behavior is one of the more difficult things to do - the problem here is to strike a behavior balance, scripting it like you suggest would very likely result in a 'capture the castle' AI behavior, forcing you to actually play defensive.
There are traits that simulate food supplies: "Supplies" and "FriendlyTerritory" - both change movement points based on where an army is (home land or enemy territory) and for how long.
Could you also change the map?Could you make zagros mountain more like a mountain not a small hills,make persia more like a basin.Could you use the map in www.map-for-free .com to reshape the map
Elevating mountains above a certain height is only possible for inaccessible areas - it will otherwise have strange (and unwanted) effects on battles, black radar maps and units stranded on inaccessible cliffs are some of these effects.
The point is that running away from danger was, among all the cultures in the mod, something akin to a crime. It unmade social status, it was often met with executions, exiles or falls from power. Such an important aspect cannot be left out from a project such as ours, centered so much on historical accuracy...Quote:
And my argument from the beginning (one that you have ignored, aside from Gigantus originally calling it “BS”), is that a “cowardice” trait is unrealistic and ahistoric. It is a silly trait, and, in my opinion, a bit “high school”. Arjos, the only thing you say in response, is the imperious “we want the trait,” – as if I have no right to question this decision. That sort of implies you invite criticism so long as it does not question any decisions you have already made. If that is indeed your stance and policy, then make that clear, and I will not waste my time making these points.
Presuming it it not, I will make the following points (to back my assertion that a “cowardice” trait is unhistoric), and then, I really have nothing more to say on the subject.
If a general withdrew from a battle, back in Rome, a general's enemies might snicker privately “coward”, but those enemies would be snickering about other stuff even if the general had a “heroic” success. But politically, success or failure over the campaign was what really counted.
And this solution is already mild, Punic FMs and generals should get basically a "kill_self" command after a defeat to represent the Karthadastim crucifying them for example...
Here's the quirk: engine limitations!!!Quote:
Generals should have every right to withdraw from a battlefield without penalty of stigma, and historically they often did. Whether we call it a “withdrawal” or a “rout” depends on how much control and order the general maintains during the retreat. If some units, or even all of them, even the general's own bodyguard, “rout”, without the generals order to do so, perhaps that shows the general has trouble inspiring courage or otherwise controlling his men, and perhaps he deserves censor for that – you could strip him of a star, for instance – but as you have taken great lengths to prove, I doubt the game engine is sophisticated enough for you to distinguish between a withdrawal and a total rout, and frankly, I don't think such a persnickety censor is worth the trouble. The game already gives the player a disapproving scroll, and perhaps other censors, for losing the battle.
Unfortunately we cannot discern it and we feel that the trait occurring with real routs is more important. It is already something of a compromise as it isn't as punishing as it would've been. Collaterally it occurs with withdraws...
Still imo you are focusing too much on the aftermaths and specific historical figures, knowing what followed. Yours is a series of abstracted causes and effects with no humanity in it...Quote:
No one cared whether Varus cut a brave figure when he marched without scouts into the Teutoburg forest, they just called him incredibly stupid and incompetent when he lost the legions. No one, even in Rome, questioned Hannibal's courage for losing and withdrawing so many battles --they admired, respected, and hated him for how he recovered and came back doubly strong.
The now and present is completely left out of your preferential scenario you've described, any levied man, political enemy, disgrunted/tired soldier etc would look even at tactical retreats as a sign of weakness and would lose faith in their general (think of the Cunctator, hell even setbacks by Alexandros were met by doubts). Do note that our trait is doubtful courage, you are the only one rethorically referring to it as cowardice. It is at the 3rd and 4th level of that trait chain that cowardice and fear are mentioned...
Had Varvs run away and even survived, they would've called him stupid, incompetent and coward. Roman martial culture demanded death and sacrifice over survival of defeat. Also focusing on the decline of the Mos Maiorvm in the 1st century BC isn't a good depiction/sample of Roman culture...
As for the picture you are referring to of Hannibal is all coming from the posterity and the knowledge of the ultimate victory by the Romani, not to mention the modern jibber jabber of military historians depicting Scipio as his disciple. It's war anyone with a brain sees something done properly by the enemy and acts on his own tactics accordingly...
I'd very much wonder how much respect and admiration were given to Hannibal by any Roman man during the years and days they were fighting and dying, because of him...
Plus that peachy idea of total admiration and respect is frankly again using a modern lense, the few quotes and propaganda behind them say how Hannibal could win, but had no idea of what to do with a victory for example. Far from being respectful admiration it is a statement of facts: he had victories on the field and no one could deny the dead, but he lost and in just few years lost everything, bested by Roman qualities...
Again even the infamous meeting with Scipio as an older exile, by stating that he would've been better than Alexandros had he won against Scipio. Underneath it is pretty lampant the assertment that no one, but Alexandros could best the Romani. And that was a dead demigod, which could be admired, but the Romani are saying that no one alive threatened them...
Not to mention this is all talks and ideas from the few educated elites, doesn't even touch on what everyone was thinking about Hannibal. A little glimpse is mothers spooking naughty children with the name of Hannibal: so much for admiration...
Plus gameplay-wise nothing prevents you to come back hard on the enemy, like your examples of Caesar, and gain positive traits compensating and overcoming (I'm not sure, but the doubtful courage might even go away) the effects of said trait...
Arjos, you arguments are well thought and well made, and if you will allow me, I withdraw my objections. Allow me also, to make the following observations.
{ The point is that running away from danger was, among all the cultures in the mod, something akin to a crime. It unmade social status, it was often met with executions, exiles or falls from power. Such an important aspect cannot be left out from a project such as ours, centered so much on historical accuracy...}
In the main, this is true, at least for the rank and file. I'm not so sure the same rule applied to the generals, though, who played in a more complex political arena. They would have to walk a tightrope between the hints of cowardice and accusations that they needlessly threw away the lives of their troops. This applied just as much in the period of EBII as it does today, and to all the cultures therein – some historians have a tendency to portray the people of history as primitive, less sophisticated, and less politically apt than the people of today. We need strive to avoid this tendency
{any levied man, political enemy, disgrunted/tired soldier etc would look even at tactical retreats as a sign of weakness and would lose faith in their general}
See, now that is what I wondered – at least for the disgrunted/tired soldier – seeing as the trait gives a -1 moral penalty. Would a tired soldier rally more to a general who had fearlessly led him into battle, however the battle was going, or would he be more inclined to trust a general that had demonstrated that he cared more for the lives of his soldiers than some possible slight to his own reputation? I admit it is a bit of a toss-up.
{hell even setbacks by Alexandros were met by doubts}
Initially I thought this was one of your best points. It certainly stopped me up to think. Now, though, I am rethinking it – I'm not sure they were doubts about his courage. More the opposite – that he would take them into death and destruction without fear or regard. So this, actually, is an argument against the inclusion of the trait.
{Do note that our trait is doubtful courage, you are the only one rethorically referring to it as cowardice.}
Oops! -- Please forgive me here. I was referring to it as the “Coward” trait because that is what it is called in the code (the first level giving the “Doubtful Courage” tag to the general). I did not mean to try and bolster my argument by giving it any extra weight of stigma by the term “coward”. I actually thought the term “Doubtful Courage” was very well chosen for the first level of the trait, and had, in itself, a certain poetry.
Anyway, aside from the niggly-naggly doubts mentioned above, I still think your arguments were well made, and in the balance, win the day. I am mollified by at least knowing your reasoning for including the trait, and I don't think it is quite as silly and childish as I did before.
Slàn liebh,
Cruin.
I find that you had very wrong setting for a light cavelry.I had 4 unit of cavelry archer shot at 1 unit of cavelry.It at least take me 10 minuit to totally kill them out.It is one of the lightest cavelry in the game.They have no armour.How could they take so many arrow?In really.Only 1 direct hit can make a light cavelry loose the ability to fight.Please be reasonable with the light cavelry.The Rome 2 total war does very well in this manner
Is there any chance of HOTSEAT implemented to EBII? Just love playing several factions on the map at once with another mod.
There is a standard, hot seat capable mtw2.lnt file (mtw2-hotseat) in the data\menu folder. Rename the default file (mtw2) and then remove the suffix (-hotseat) from the hotseat file.
Because it is default it will yield some 'interesting' UI appearance in the menu, but it is usable and functional.
The hot seat capability should at some stage be coded into the default file we are using - that file is a night mare unless you really know what you are doing.
Well hotseat has been added to the build for the next release. It seems to be fully working, so you won't need to do anything special, but just download the new version when it's out.
Yes, there's a "hotseat campaign" button in main menu now. About the mtw2.int file, i have worked it out so now I could even create new pages menus and display custom stuff there.
Hat off to you - took me ages to figure out how to add a version display graphic, never mind an animated element (short BIK) to the menu.
Making a guide about it couldn't hurt, I'd probably give it a read. :book2:
OK, as unit battlefield stat guy, I'll hear you out @血荐轩辕:Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
several questions pop to mind, reading this description:Quote:
I had 4 unit of cavelry archer shot at 1 unit of cavelry.It at least take me 10 minuit to totally kill them out. It is one of the lightest cavelry in the game.They have no armour.
-which horse archers (some suck, some don't: arrow type is important here)
-and which light cavalry? quite a few of the latter I know have 1 or 2 armor. (from a gameplay standpoint, there are hardly any units with 0 armor--certainly none for the cavalry). This is important to note, as this can affect things.
-was the enemy in loose formation for at least part of the time?
-did you surround the enemy or not?
-did the targeted unit have a shield (yes, this is a big deal)?
-how far were your men on average from the enemy?
-EDIT: oh, since we're dealing with Horse Archers: did you use the Cantabrian circle or not (again, it makes a big difference)
because, assuming it went like a typical fight (I'm assuming the enemy loosened its formation), 10 minutes is quite fast. You do realize I designed the stat system with slower combat relative to vanilla M2TW in mind, right? It'd have been slower had it not been for CA's decision to tie cohesion to lethality (and make the latter universal...)
Who said they're "taking" many arrows (here I'm assuming you mean "struck by"? consider these possibilities--all but the last of which happen in Real Life:Quote:
How could they take so many arrow?In really.Only 1 direct hit can make a light cavelry loose the ability to fight.
-not every shot will hit the target: most will in fact do the opposite (in fact, I made sure of this...)
-not every shot which hits the target will be serious enough to cripple or kill it (especially with arrows). the arrow might put a hole in a hat, co through a sleeve, etc. I might hit a shield, or glance off a helmet.
-horses have been known to take multiple shots with arrows--that's why as late as the Hundred years war, you hear dozens of descriptions of "horses maddened by arrows". You're assuming only the horseman would be hit hard. Obviously horses can be taken out with one shot, but that would be a lucky shot.
-while we're on the subject of horsemen: he and his horse share the same hit point, so if anything horses are weaker in this mod then they should be historically...
-the horse archer is on a horse bobbing up and down, trying to hit a lone target also moving up and down (and I'm assuming at least 70 meters away).
Well, this isn't Rome 2: total war. This is not a mod for fast-paced combat. And again, 10 minutes is actually not bad--especially as by your own words, you completely destroyed the unit.Quote:
Please be reasonable with the light cavelry.The Rome 2 total war does very well in this manner
EDIT: for anyone else making a comment along these lines: don't just give me a useless comment. I will tear you to pieces, as I've done here. a good post on the subject should clarify what units there were, how many (and ideally the level of experience), what happened (that is, actions by the enemy and by yourself), where the battle was fought (and if it was part of a campaign), and so on. What I've devised with Quintus, z3n, and many others' help is quite complicated, and depends on many variables--as it should. We can't fix any chinks if we can't even make heads or tails about your complaint. Believe me, you're not doing us any favors if you post like this.
I think that you have underate the power of bow and arrow.It is bow and arrow alone that forge Mongolian empire.That is the light cavalry when I fight khiva as parthia.The arrow should be more powerful.A light cavelry is very vanerable to arrow.If they are not afraid of arrow.What is the difference between light and heavy cavalry?Please widen the gap between light and heavy cavelry ,between light and heavy infantryQuote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
Oh boy...
before I answer this, please do me a favor: answer my questions directly.
you do realize this isn't the middle ages, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
As to the Hellenistic time-period: the main bow types which have been found from this time-period (notably the yrzi bow) had at best only about half the poundage of the Mongolian bow (so no more than ~80 Pounds draw). This, combined with the lighter arrows used, will make for a weaker missile. I'm sorry, but I can't apply Mongol tech to the hellenistic timeperiod.
that doesn't answer my question: what is the name of the unit? cavalry units could have been recruited with a veriety of stats...Quote:
That is the light cavalry when I fight khiva as parthia.
though if it's what I suspect, then the unit has a shield, and in this case is well protected. That's a limitation of the engine, and not my problem. Just maneuver your men to the opposite side, or to the back of the enemy. EDIT: and get up-close.
see my comment above...repeating something won't make it the right idea.Quote:
The arrow should be more powerful.
which is why it only took you ten minutes to annihilate the unit....(hey, you said it, but you won't tell me more: and again, 10 minutes is fast. I saw Sargon of Akkad destroy a serious army "easily", and it took him only ~10 minutes).Quote:
A light cavelry is very vanerable to arrow.
And dude, we all know unarmored cavalry is going to be vulnerable: we're not stupid. Problem is, I can't judge the validity of your comment, if you won't answer the questions I posed:
I'm not asking you to solve a calculus equation: I'm asking for a proper description of the battle you fought, which you claim took you 10 minutes to resolve. simply telling me you had 4 units of horse archers kill off "light cavalry" in 10 minutes isn't detailed enough for my purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by me
seriously, think about it: how can I do my job, if I don't even know what on Earth was going on in the battle? don't you want me to fix any mistakes (if they even exist)? or are you just gulling me?
most light cavalry have between 1 and 3 armor, and defence between 3 and 6. They tend to be used for skirmishing and harrassing, and have loose formations.Quote:
.What is the difference between light and heavy cavalry?
most heavy cavalry are between 7 and 17 armor, and defense between 6 and 9. Their job is to charge into other cavalry and into infantry (with caveats...)
that's assuming shields aren't involved. for all cavalry, this can be between 2 and 4...
of course, you'd know that if you actually read the stats for the units...
dude, if you can't tell the difference between light and heavy units at this stage, I can't help you. I'm sorry.Quote:
Please widen the gap between light and heavy cavelry ,between light and heavy infantry
EDIT: also, what version of EB II are you running? if you're using an old version, there was a bug in it that made cavalry overly strong v. missiles: this has since been fixed. If for some reason the fix isn't present in the new version, I can guarantee it'll be there in the next release.
Ok，maybe.I dont know how much is the casualty of the arrow at that time.Could you make the troop more easily to run or rout?They are not modern tropp.Willingness to casualty is more important than weapon does to increase the power of a troop.Normally,If a troop is willing to take half the casualty and they will stilll fight.They will make a formidable force. Ten percent of casualty will normally make a troop run away.Large part of cusualty will apear in the chasing.This could make the battle shorter.
Could you add a trophy system?You can win a fortune when you defeat a large force in enemy zone.It will help the nomad in their begining.In history,Nomad is pillaging and pillaging untill they become the conqueror of the district.Could you cancel the upkeep cost for nomad troop?I know that mongolian troop does not have payment .They even need to pay tribute to their rulers with their sheep or cow.Their income is the trophy.This should be the same as the early saka
I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
The morale system is actually the lowest known of any mod: most light cavalry are anywhere from 2-4 morale points, and discipline levels are also low. I simply can't make it lower: direct testing (and literally a couple dozen complaints) made it clear that any lower, and insta-routs (without any fighting) would become too common. It's a limitation of the engine.:shrug:Quote:
Could you make the troop more easily to run or rout?They are not modern tropp.Willingness to casualty is more important than weapon does to increase the power of a troop.Normally,If a troop is willing to take half the casualty and they will stilll fight.They will make a formidable force. Ten percent of casualty will normally make a troop run away.Large part of cusualty will apear in the chasing.This could make the battle shorter.
you mean the spoils of war script?Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
@Gigantus: do we already have this? if not, would it be workable?
I would have to check, but I believe we have something like that in place - part of the financial script I think.
There's already a spoils of war script. And there's a nomad pillage script (they get income from causing devastation).
We can't "cancel the upkeep of nomads", you can't vary upkeep by faction. Upkeep is the same for every faction who can recruit a unit, there is no way to change it for one faction or factions. Nomads already have lots of free upkeep slots in their nomadic government buildings, that's the means by which you get cheap armies.
I am quite disappointed with M2TW engine.You cant make a total historical things out of M2TW engine.It is too bad.I think you can make it better in Mount and blade.It has the supply line.It has conflict within and without,between the king and the noble.Please make a civil war system .The king can only control the development in his own capital in the east.They dont have the absolute power.Many city should be made self govern.Player cant held total power over them.They could only get their tribute and the army when they .I dont know where is it possible.I just know the parthia is very very unhistorical....
There is already a supply system in the traits.
Civil war/internal conflict is in progress, alongside factional resurgence which was implemented already for the upcoming release and helps represent this (2.2).
Just because I don't think it merits a whole new thread. The ambient settlements on the Twitter account....are they going to be used for the permanent forts? I ask only because, although I'm aware that those battles (the permanent forts) are supposed to 'approximate' field battles, the way the defending armies retreat and rally at a certain point on the map always looks odd to me. The addition of these ambient settlements would make that behaviour seem more....natural.
PSF's are out in the next version, the CAI can't handle them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
The next release will correct the crash when you select all units in custom and multiplayer battle setup as you can only play early as well hotseat that will be awesome
We've corrected the Late-era crashing, but the All crash is un-fixable. It happens because there are too many units to display if you allow literally everything. I'm not sure what the limit is, but the current 260-something is too many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
There's no way around this; to avoid campaign crashes, every unit has to be on the ownership for every faction, just in case it somehow ends up passing into the ownership of a faction we might not have predicted.
The alternative is to have a second EDU just for multiplayer/custom battles, but that would still not be able to allow a faction to recruit every unit.
I think you should add a conscrption system .in ancient there is little standing army.All the army was made up of mercenary or conscription.we can make use of the mercenary system.general can summon a stack of army when it is needed.But it should be dismissed as soon as the danger is over or it will bankcrupt you and severely injure the local economy
I think the major drawback for EB2 and all total war seri is the map.There is only one city in one vast region.Does anyone have maps belong to this time range?especially for the ancient iran.I want to know how much iran is exploited at that time.thanks
Sorry, but this is a gross oversimplification that overlooks the pretty huge variations by region and culture as to how they arranged their military affairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
I've noticed when arranging units into a column formation, the unit with a siege engine (ram, tower, etc.) is placed behind other units in the column. Any way to change this so that they're placed up front?
Siege engines (ballista, onager) are always sorted to the back, ram and tower fall into the same category. You will have to give them their own formation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baphemous
At least initially Athens, Sparta and Rhodes have only fishing villages for ports, so they get no trade revenue and have no safe haven for fleets. Is this intended or just a bug?
It's a bug fixed by the 2.2a patch (see the original post in the announcement thread).Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaatu
Damn, I though I installed the patch. No bug reports from me then.
When will the discription for all regions be added? can you give the minor settlement some building .It is much more historical that there is a major city and some minor city in one region
Not sure about the region descriptions. We don't really have anyone working on them ATM.
I think minor settlements act like trade resources now, and give a bonus to provincial income.
Just BTW, if you ever want to pitch in and help finish a region description, feel free. Some of them are fan-made. They do take a lot of work/research though.
Yes,I am willing to help.I am fond of classical geography.Although I know a lot about ancient chinese geography and each strategic point but I am afraid I dont know much about that in ancient middle east and mediterranean .I read Pliny.But it tell little things as our chinese book did .It just list how many colonia and municipality and nothing more.
by the way,I think lugdunum should be deleted.it does not exist at 272BC.nomadic region should have more rebel .Because there is alway rivalry tribes to the nomadic faction.Meanwhile in settled region.There should be less but more powerful rebel.Not just few hundred but full stack of rebel will roam a region which coincide with uprising in history
The AI is still too weak.I played parthia.I just push one faction and then the other to destruction.Other faction did not attack me at my back.There must be something wrong in this game.Do you know a mod named stainless steel.The AI is ten time stronger than the EBII.It almost drive me mad when I play a weak faction.That is neigh impossible.But in EBII there is nothing impossible.I think the troop recuited remain in the original region should be free.Because you know.In ancient greece.One soldier get 1 drachma a day in war time .They get nothing at peace.Not to mention nomadic troop dont have salary at all.They only have a share in the trophy.I hope this would increase the strength of AI faction.There is less than 200 soldier in asaak,Do you really think it is historical?The seleucid is so weak that parthia is not challenging at all
Rebellions are kind of random, in game, overall. There's some editing possible regarding the strength of rebels spawned and the frequency, but it's not as flexible as you think/as we would like.
Stainless Steel is unquestionably a very well-known and fun mod, but the goal of EBII isn't to make a player's life hell like Stainless Steel and some of it's submods, AFAIK. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Regarding the AI not garrisoning it's cities properly, nothing we can do about that--the AI typically hates garrisoning cities. There's an upcoming garrison script for factional capitals soon in 2.2c, but otherwise, there isn't much we can do about it. Of course, we can't perfectly replicate history, we just try to do our best.
About the upkeep, it's not that simple, nor do I personally believe that troop payment should/would stop in peacetime. We can't represent everything perfectly, of course.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-the-EBII-Team
Here's the regional desc. thread. It's quite outdated, however. The middle-east and Mediterranean are fairly well represented already, but lots of areas in Europe/Eurasia need work. Gaul has quite a few places that need work, for eg.
For some sections, you'll need more than classic historical sources(eg. geography), just ftr. Strategy sections don't need sources, but in-game experience and knowledge of a province's function should be sufficient.
Then could you introduce another system 。If a city is besige,The army in the city will multiply automatically.Too few garrison made it quite boring and also unhistorical.The conscription is normal in ancient time.Though it is not a good soldier.But in desperation they can still cause quite great casualty to the enemy.this can effectively stop some faction like parthia easily storm large part of land.Also the player should disband them quick because it will have negative influence over the economy since so many citizen was enlisted.I think this is the only way to save some dinasaur like seleucid
My last test run on the dev build shows the AS being the grey death, as was true in very early EBII.
The garrison script(what you're suggesting) will only be there for factional capitals, that's 29 cities, with 2 for AS(a special case since they had multiple capitals AFAIK). Since the team isn't very fond of garrison scripts, myself included, their introduction will be greatly limited. This is because many of us believe that too many garrison scripts only makes the game "artificially" difficult. It doesn't make the AI smarter, it just makes them have a sudden numerical advantage/bonus. There aren't any plans, atm, for extending that script for more cities, sorry.
The garrison script is also only for the AI--the player does not gain any benefit from them personally. I am not a fan of garrison scripts, but for factional capitals, it could make sense and isn't so bad as long as it's greatly limited in it's implementation.
Then how to solve the problem of a passive AI.It even does not attack me until i take more then half of its territory.
About lugdunon, from one of our historians:Well, one thing z3n has said is that he was utterly disappointed with how the AI manages to defend itself--so in the next release, his CAI is actually set to defend as little as possible, and attack as much as possible. It's been a good balance, thus far, in testing. In my tests, the AI was quite aggressive, sending many stacks after me, and starting war with me at times.Quote:
The area was inhabited since the Neolithic and a continuous Keltic settlement is attested since the 4th century BC.
I still think there is something wrong in this mod.I didnt notice AI hate to garison city in other mod.I think the training cost is too high.Principae is more than 1000 mina.That is too high.that is dozens of kgs of silver.Did your history advisor tell you how much 1500 mina worth in classical time?I can buy a city with it not just a cohort of principae.I am almost sure the problem is with the training cost.because I have never see a mod with a higher training cost than EBII.Please cut down the training cost to less than 100 mina.It is just training.Ok!
Well, I can easily say, that after having much discussion on the subject, the AI does not reliably garrison it's cities. It's a fact, you can't depend on the AI to do that sort of thing. You really can't depend on the AI for a lot of things, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
The unit costs aren't planned to be changed any time soon AFAIK. Personally, I don't think it's the training cost causing the problem at all here, and there's been no discussion regarding whether it's the culprit or not; you're the first to suggest that, AFAIK. All units costs are based upon an existing formula that takes stats into account. It's a pretty stringent system atm, and one that I, and many others, appreciate.
But the AI really sucks.What are you going to do about the AI.In my mind,even before destruction.seleucid can gather a force 1200000 strong to attack parthia.I dont even see 12 stacks of seleucid army before its annilation.It is both boring and and unhistorical！
I think you can make more reble settlement in the east of seleucid empire.in the game ,even the reble is stronger than the seleucid.It could give the seleucid a buffer zone.And in history,seleucid is center in syria.it had little control over iran.They are often ruled by petty kings or independent govenor.They are virtually independent before they are to decare that.This can halt the expansion of some faction like parthia.
I find its a toss up whether or not the Seleucids get devoured. The first couple campaigns I played they beasted everyone in the east, while other times I've seen them carved up between two or three other Asian factions. It probably comes down to the luck of the draw in the AI's early battles and whoever gets the momentum. Doesn't seem terribly imbalanced to me, as the same thing happens with the European and African factions.
Thats been pretty much my experience. Sometimes the AS wanes, sometimes it rises. That's good--as every campaign should see different powers rising and falling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baphemous
Can experience bonus from the likes of gymnasium and similar buildings have an increase of +4 instead of +1?
I felt the effects of having only 2 bronze chevrons to be quite worthless when compared to how the ones from EB1 were.
I hope that you guy can make some use of the holy war system not just delete it.When a big nation has fewer than 3 cities,the ai will call for the priest for righteous war to defend the kingdom.in this case,they can summon troops with no expense like the troops in the holy war.some faction are just too weak.There is nothing fun in the game
There's nothing equivalent that is appropriate to model with that mechanic.Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
Holy war is an offensive mechanism\feature in M2TW, it isn't suitable for this.
in this case ,I think there is only one way to say this miserable AI.please lower all the training fee for all the troop.I can garanteed that nomad troop dont take any salary.The famous mongolian warrior ,they dont get any salary.they even need to pay tenth of their herds to their lord.It is this kind of miserable condition that make the nomadic tribe so ferocious.But they are also vulnerable because they had no armour.I dont think the noble cavalry take any salary.they had there fief,their serfs ,as we can see from mongolian.but all this people will get a large share of trophy.This can make do with a largest sum of corruptian as penalty.by the way ,can you guy told me the value of one mina in ancient time.I thought a mina is more than a sterling pound of silver.That is a fortune when the value of human life is very low.a hoplite earn 1 drachma is actually quite high.But they just cost 70 mina a year.that is the upkeep.I think the training cost vertually nothing,the state dont provide armour.just call them together learn discipline.Why will it be expensive?i think the training fee should range about from 10 mina to 100 mina. upkeep fee should be ranged from 0 to a few thousands because you should take logistics into account
Short answer: no. All unit costs are based upon a consistent formula, applied to every unit. I'm not about to rewrite it, and recost every single unit, without good reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
You're overlooking the mechanic that already exists for units who don't need paying: free upkeep. For which nomadic factions have a lot, and even more in winter (the traditional time of sending herds out to pasture).
Those unit in the original region that they were recruited shall be free of upkeep. because there is vertually no standing army in that time.Those troops get high salary at war time and nothing at peace time.if the troop go into enemy region.The upkeep will rise and moral ran low.the longer the troop stay in enemy region the upkeep cost will be higher.
None of those things are possible in the M2TW engine. You can't change cost or upkeep once the campaign has started, and you can only set one global figure for all places and all times.Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
Nor does the engine reflect morale as a result of being paid.
No ,I mean just lower the price for all unit.The price has been set too high,otherwise you can proof me wrong with the historical value of mina.I think this will help the AI a lot.since all those mod I had played with low training fee.The AI are very much ferocious
Historical value when and where? Based on what exchange rate of gold to silver?Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
We have only one currency for the entire game, it's a concession to the way the engine was designed. The AI doesn't need "help" it gets both scripted financial assistance and big construction discounts.
then why did AI so mild?We want the AI in the EBI !Oh that AI is gorgeous.I have never find a better AI that EBI.When I push into mesopotamia.The ptolemais will ally with seleucid to push me back.I can play it all day long.I play EBII for an hour that I find it boring and dull
The AI in EB1 was dumb. It was just hyper-aggressive, total war all the time. That isn't gorgeous, it was tedious. Add to that the ridiculous money script whereby they basically had unlimited money and could spam elites turn after turn, and that make most of the game a chore.Quote:
Originally Posted by 血荐轩辕
EB1 is not the standard we're trying to emulate with EBII.
but,it is a game ,though historical ,not a book.the old power allied with their former enemy to fight a rising power is common in history,And it made it funny.I play parthia.Only me declare war on other.No one faction declare war on me.They dont stand a chance when I declare a war.Can you call.this historical?it is boring!I think a trait in EBI can be introduce.When a city turn into rebel,it can be rebel away to another faction.and their will be war between them.The AI should be learn to take their chance.They can stab player in the back,when their hand are tied up elsewhere
I suggest about Romans :
1) to evidence (event) the difference between Senatus et Principatus atque Dominatus, in 3 different ages and consequent civil wars and even the " title " change from " faction leader " to " princeps " to " imperator". It would be interesting to focus on the " religious" qualifications ...pontifex...divus....augustus....associated to the character (e.g. the heir in the Principatus should have the " principis iuventutis" )
2) to restore the Senatus missions until the changeling of the State form and to introduce the concept of "foederatus" to promote this old fashioned habit which was very recurring.
3) to introduce the possibility to be elected ( quaestor, praetor...) even if the candidate is far away from Rome. Provided that he is winning battles against enemies or he accomplished a mission.
4) to introduce simple Roman Archers at the beginning ; then Roman Archers Auxilia and Roman Lancers Auxilia even in Rome and in some Provinciae. To reform Romans' equites, they remain the same even after marian reform, and even the Roman General Bodyguard, it remain the same.
5) for whole game : to introduce the possibility to train soldiers even if my army is far away from the region in which they usually got trained. I mean, if I am playing with Romans, and I am doing a campaign Vs Armenians, how I could finish it ? In 3-4 battles I will loose 40%-50% of my soldiers, so I should get back to Italy to re-train them and then move again in Armenia or...I should fill my army with mercenaries. It is very uncomfortable, I think.
You can't change titles in-game. They're all set once and for the whole duration in the expanded.txt.Quote:
Originally Posted by CumPizdrul
We're not going to do that. They're a gamey and ahistorical feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by CumPizdrul
We're not doing that either, it's done that way on purpose. Get your FMs back to Rome, or don't receive imperium. They already have a very generous pro-magisterial period after an election to operate with.Quote:
Originally Posted by CumPizdrul
No, I'm afraid not. The javelin was the missile weapon of the Italian peninsular. The only new allied missile unit will be an Italic javelineer. You need to look to other cultures for missiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by CumPizdrul
Marian Equites weren't any different from the Polybian ones, that's why they don't change.
Again, not going to happen. Roman recruitment is the way it is by design. If you want Romans out in the provinces, you need to keep shipping out reinforcements to merge with your armies to make up losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by CumPizdrul
In the Marian era, you can recruit local equivalents/supports through the Provinciae government. Half your force should be allied anyway.
Thank you . But actually, I am quite sure that Romans got archers ( Sagittarii ) both pofessional and mercenary ones. In fact they had, in the early Res Publica period, Kretan Archers as auxilia and since 80 BC (more less) professional archers troops (obviously from Sirya or Thracia). You can easily see them carved in the " Trajanus Column", in Rome, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius
About the rest, I am not able with scripts and codes, so I don't understand the difficulty to change features and/or parts of the config.
However, to rule a whole region, if each single governor must get back to Rome often, in order to receive the imperium or the authority to rule / make war could bring many problems when the empire is big, just to say.
Anyway thank you for everything you all doing for this mod!!
Yes, and that was a very real problem the Romans struggled with. Elections were in Rome, regardless of how distant the province.
You can recruit Kretans and other archers in the Provinciae government after the Marian reform. You can also recruit them from the Civitas Libera government and Allied Governments for that matter.
Of course it was a problem. But in this game, at a certain point, you will have Rome full of people. I mean, the office maybe lasts a little few. Anyway I think it is not a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius
About archers, I was meaning that of course soldiers were from Syria or other countries, but they were permanent units in the roman army, they were not mercenaries ; in fact they were wearing the roman's armour in the late period while almost anything in the early one.
And you can recruit them with a Provinciae in Syria after the Marian reform.Quote:
Originally Posted by CumPizdrul
Here's something that I've been thinking about. That is if it would be possible for the Koine faction to re-establish Sparta's old system with the oppression of the helots and so starting to boost the possible creation or Spartiate hoplites? I don't recall Sparta ever giving up on that idea while they had independence and so I would think that if they were more successful, they would have brought it back to life.
Either through a reform or through being allowed to build some "building" in Sparta itself.
Hello Gurkhal2, welcome to the .Org and to EB ~:wave: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurkhal2
If I recall correctly, in 272 BC Sparta still controlled its own helot population in Laconia, so no reform would be required. It was just the Messanian helots that had been liberated. No doubt the Spartans would have liked to reenslave Messenia, but I am not sure it would have mattered hugely. Spartan hoplites were always few in number.
EDITED: Removed the whole extended suggestion for various reasons.
Not directly related, but KH does have an Agiad reform for Sparta, caused by changing land ownership. Ie building a big enough farm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurkhal2
That's sweet to hear about! I'll try to get this in my campaign and see how it is. Thanks for the info!Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius