~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Printable View
~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Well no, since CA didn't make it up, as it was around for a while. They just used what already existed. ~;)
I think you guys should just be happy the CA didn't name the gauls "central barbs" and the casse "north barbs" ~D
hoplites could have been named: greek spearmen in formation.
seleucids: western greeks
parthians: never mind, they already fucked those up
egypt: dotn get me started..
jerby, might want to edit part of your post ~;)
hoplites should be "guys with spears" ~D
yeah, Guys, Dude, Blokes. soemthing liek that.
see the new unit profile?
http://www.totalwar.com/community/spearman.htm
weirdly, the description talks baout spear+shield..
absolutly nothing historicall in teh desciption
CA's Egyptians are wrong. They don't walk like Egyptians, you know: ~;p
http://www.fuerteventura.com/carniva.../egyptians.jpg
~:thumb: Now CA just needs the priest to be more like the one's from monty python(sp?!) ~D
[QUOTE=Chester]The AI :
-no longer sends in single units to attack your front but attacks as one big army
Sounds great !!!
i already see an entire army of those blokes marching ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus
I'd sure flee...Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
would scare elephants to deathQuote:
Originally Posted by Jebus
...or make them laugh to death, which is all the same... :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
even chariots would biet teh dust. the horses woudln't mind, but the riders would fall of and roll on teh flour and laugh their asses offQuote:
Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus
Hey, at least RTR is available. EB is still in the "wow, looks great" stage and has been since the dinosaurs.
I'm beginning to thing the "countdown" thread is the game!
Was somebody talking here? Looks like it's been almost three days since RTR was being discussed (and in a civil manner I might add, till...).Quote:
Originally Posted by Revelation
Nothing un civil about my post mate. Just stating facts. Yes EB looks great. It's just not out yet. RTR is and it's a huge step up from vanilla.
No RTR vs EB here.
It is no secret EB has been in development for bloody ages.
So get off your high horse Tel.
Touchy touchy!
Hey, at least it's much easier to spot trolling posts from up here. :charge:Quote:
Originally Posted by Revelation
And then run down the troll as he flees! :charge:
No offence, but saying stuff like "the countdown is just one giant conspiracy!" is, well, kinda pointless? Honestly, do you think mod is finished but they are with holding it because they are evil? Which is more likely:
A:The mod is finished and has only not been released yet because the EB team members are evil B******* and are probably in league with aliens.
B:the mod is incomplete and they don't want to release something that is unfinished.
I repeat, which is more likely? ~;)
I did not say anything of the sort, nor did my post imply it.
But hey, interpret it anyway you like.
Meanwhile, i'll just go about my business of upsetting insecure individuals here at EB forums.
Someone needs to act the forum whore and it may as well be me. :duel:
Howdy...long-time lurker here.
I just thought I'd chime in and give my thoughts on the RTR vs EB matter. RTR 6.0's a good mod, but in my opinion sacrifices too much gameplay for abstracted realism. There are a variety of issues in the mod which I feel detract from enjoying a campaign for its own sake, and seem to be included almost solely to cater to the "realism or death!" crowd. Which is a bit disappointing.
That said there are some brilliant concepts in the game (AoR, for instance) and it's certainly proving rather entertaining for the time being, but I can't help feeling a little disappointed in the general feel of it. I do hope that the EB team understand the importance of balancing realism with gameplay in order to have a mod that is fun before accurate.
Though I have to say this, even though EB hasn't been released yet it already has a leg up on RTR by using the mundus magnus map. The one in RTR is so horribly cluttered in some places, and so desolate in others that the flow of the game is really disrupted at times.
Anyway, so far the previews have looked fantastic! Good luck to the team and thank you for taking the time to take on such an enormous project.
very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing. and with balancing it woudl mean: all factions are equally strong.
tthey do this because 'facions' werent equal! all factions will be playable, but some easier than other. the seleucids had an armor-quality-advantage. so they will get it.
still, a competent player can win the game with any faction...balancing by history.
This way, when teh compuetr simulates the other factions (when you are, say: Rome) the factiosn that were, historically, better. will 8/10 times be better.
instead of CA's eggies destroyign everything in their path..
But this is all faction-balancing. but unit balancing will be the same.
"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."
That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.
well. EB is not into "getting as much DL's as possibe" it's not part of 'the gaming industry' they're just a couple of lads who like history.
and history over balancing. means history o ver balancing. and not: all history and to hell with balancing. Units need stats, and stats aren't obtained by history..the only refernes they have for 'stats' are sources of weapon quality, armor quality and training skill...
and i must say..if you look around. they also enhanched the animations a bit. and if they include soem stuff from Darth's (like the units continuely fighting, no pausing, wichhe claims to have accieved) it will still be a great mod..
history-balancing. the one doenst exclude the other...it's the gamers job to alternate history, or to relive it. EB just want to make sure the starting is accurate, and teh units are.
even with EB, RTW will still be RTW..even if a mod focused completly on 'perfect balancing' it will still be RTW...
and if you dont like it..there's always RTR..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninefingers
I think the fun comes when you try to achieve something with a faction, historically that culture won't be able to do.
Makes more fun, as to have balanced unit stat.
One problem might be multi player battles.
nah, no problem..just balance the unit costs( in export_descr_unit, you there have 3 costs: capmaign recruit, campaign upkeep, custom battle cost) so the faction that has 'weaker' units, and was historically 'a bump in the road' would have lowered costs.
but again, i should nota that there's no real weak faction..it all comes down to the terrain, and the player..
so, except the 'weird maerketing strat' what do you fear that is going to happen?
And get RTW? I do understand your point, but historical accuracy has been EB's main goal, and we're trying to achieve that. And we're not part of the gaming industry in as we get paid for doing this, or charge people for the MOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninefingers
However, we have run several campaigns with the "-ai" tag at console, and it seems the factions are balanced, as no game yet has had the exact some outcome. In one campaign Makedonia became the greatest power on in the Balkans, while in the next the Koinon Hellenon did. In another game Pontos was snuffed out early on, but in another they conquered all the provinces between Pergamum and Persepolis and taking almost all of Arabia. No faction has been the superpower in every campaign, and no faction has been killed off fairly early or not expanded at all.
So we have managed to get some semblance of balance.
Pontus a superpower? oke, something new..
Pardon me, a bit if you call 5 new important skeleton, like 2 handed swordsman, 2 handed pike(foot and mounte) and so on a little enhanchementQuote:
Originally Posted by jerby
this means you would prefer that a 6 meters long pike to be held with one hand(CA style baby) or 1.5 meter long sword to be held with one hand, or that an unit would stab with and axe, etc. :dizzy2:
~:) i know, you do great work...afaik you're one of the few peopel around the forums who can actually do it..
it was a huge understatement, i know. but it was just an example to ninevingers that EB does more than reskinning...
btw, 2 handed swordsmen? sweboz? i've only seen the new pike-walk and the 2-handed-pike-cav-charge-holding point (nice word~;) )
and you forgot the overhead stabbing hoplites..
Yeah, you'll be playing some game as the Ptolemaics when suddenly the monsterous legions of the Thracian empire descend upon you...boy won't you be confused.
Hell, even the gauls might have a chance
sarcasm alertQuote:
Originally Posted by Greek_fire19
Jolly good EB is not involved in the gaming industry then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninefingers
Also, I think that probably EB's policy, or, perhaps bettr, "philosophy", is not "history before gameplay" or "history before balance". Rather, our motto could well be something like "History IS gameplay". Or "History IS balance".
History is chock full of trade-offs, constraints, limitations. All factions had weaknesses and strengths historically. How well they did depended on how astutely they exploited the latter and minimized the former. Our belief is that, if you're willing to go the extra mile, that system of checks and constraints can be brought into this game.
So, we are convinced that by bringing history in, we also bring "balance". Of course, this "balance" is not of the "Let's give the Sarmatians the onagers they never had so they won't be disadvantaged at sieges compared to the Romans" kind. Instead, we turn sieges into one of the challenges that the Sarmatian player will have to overcome. A, totally historical, hard time at city-taking is one of the elements that will balance out the equally historical advantages the Sarmatians do have (good, varied cavalry at prices they could afford very well, for example).
That is just one example of many, but I hope it will demonstrate how, if you look for it, history is a true mine of gameplay and "balance" at all levels of the game. Even within all the limitations of the RTW system. Also, I would hope that example will show that EB's search for historical accuracy encompasses many things besides the depiction of troop types. And the beneficial effects of it in the "fun" department (such a fuzzy and subjective concept, in any case).
~:)Ah yes i forgot those, i don't think i'm the only one just that others are to lazy and prefer modeling but since i don't skin i had to do this. Not only sweboz, dacians(falx) and britons(sword) i also know of,maybe other factions also but i don't know of others than mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
If just saw an new animation, there are tens more to see.
yeah, those random 'the unit is bored' animations...
were those 2 handed swords used for slashing and stabbing? or just slashing? if so, whats wrong with teh 2 handed axe? or will it be swung over the head?
Just slashing, the 2 handed axe had some stabbing anims so i use the slash ones to replace them and create new ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
wtf, 2 handed axes stabbing? that's something new..
You haven't notice this in vanila?! You should go and see...Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
Good ~:cool: very nice to hear the EB will be abit less unbalanced then vanilla RTW.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
Quote:
"very sorry, but EB's policy is: history before balancing."
That's the most blatantly idiotic policy anyone involved in the gaming industry could possibly have. I mean I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but to toss balancing out the window in favor of achieving some contrived semblance of historical accuracy using a game engine so limited it can't even understand the concept of an alliance is...well, idiotic.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for historical accuracy whenever possible, I just don't think that it should precendence over gameplay and general "fun". If it's pants to play, then I don't think very many people are going to care how accurate their Xzilinthapolonian Ikrithinios Guard are.
What most people fail to see is that vanilla RTW is not "game play > realism"
Instead, sadly, it is "lack of realism>balance" Have you noticed that the only powerful factions are "egypt", the romans and what ever faction you are playing as? why? the vanilla game is both asininely ahistorical AND asininely unbalanced. Take cavalry for example: In vanilla RTW, a unit of cavalry can charge through a phalanx. Does this help unit balance? NO. Does it improve realism? NO.
EB will be both better balanced then vanilla RTW and much more realistic. history was far more balanced then RTW, more balance plus realism can only be a good thing, right? OK, you will lose some of the "fun" units like "flaming war dogs", but look at what will take their place*!
https://img179.imageshack.us/img179/...een18dd.th.jpg
https://img72.imageshack.us/img72/65...screen18ia.jpg
besides, "flaming war dogs" Both unbalance the game and make it less realistic
*yes, the do take their place. The unitmodel limit is very low so war dogs had to be deleted.
No truer words have been spoken lately... :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Though I'm sure we all appreciate you stating that our "policy" is the "most blatantly idiotic policy" (in your second post no less! ~D ), the really great thing is that we are not *in* the gaming industry. We are basically making this mod for free, voluntarily, ourselves. You might find it interesting to know that a few mod members are quite adamant (not myself though) that we really should only make it for ourselves, but I'm sure lots of other people will enjoy it too when it is released.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninefingers
Well, my hat's off to you folks then. I've never before seen a mod that quite honestly doesn't even pretend to pander to the masses of casual gamers (who will arguably constitute its largest user base). If you really had a discussion about whether or not to even release the mod to the public...well, all I can say is you've got some seriously dedicated staff members and I wish you nothing but the best with this admittedly gargantuan project.
Apologies for the hasty conclusion about your policy, it just strikes me as...odd. As a veteran of strategy games, I've always found balance - be it between factions/sides or units or whatever - to be the penultimate criteria of a game's potential success. If it isn't properly balanced, it's going to be crap: that's more or less the ethos I've viewed strategy games with.
So I'm sure you can imagine why someone like myself would be relatively disappointed in what is an otherwise brilliant title like R:TW. It provides all the necessary tools to create the single greatest piece of strategy gaming in gaming history, and falls short because of some really, really elementary mistakes.
Hence I hound the mod community in search of the proverbial One. The mod that would finally deliver what the R:TW campaign and battle engines are capable of producing - a refined, intelligent and balanced strategy game. Perhaps I'll just have to wait a while longer - I'd just hoped that EB would be it, since the rest of it looks so gosh darn pretty!
Anyway. Good luck with the project, I'll look forward to trying it out upon release and posting an inordinate amount of balance suggestions on your forums.
I think you might want to check this mod:https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=50355
Probably not as big or realistic as EB. But as it is an MP mod, it should be balanced fairly well........
At least we can agree on one thing; vanilla RTW is c**p ~D
You might be surprised when you finally get it though 9. If you get the open beta, you will certainly find things that still need balancing, and I'm sure that we would seriously love to hear back on suggestions and problem areas. You're right on the money I think with what I think would be the best course of action - just hang on till we get it out and give it a try. ~D We could all be wrong of course, but we really do think that folks will enjoy it when they finally get it (though we all know that there is no way in the world it will please everyone--some just won't like certain aspects and some probably just won't like us no matter what we do).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninefingers
And created by an EB member too of course! ~D ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Then what're the ultimate criteria? ~:confused: ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninefingers
-Simetrical
Flaming War Dogs? I'm sorry but there's no need to exaggerate. It just peeves me off when the realism crowd starts going on about "fantasy" units. Fantasy units would be trolls and ogres. The units in vanilla RTW are not fantasy units, if anything, most of the units have been used in history, just not as regular units as the game seems to portray. I never saw any complaining back in the M:TW days about those arab units that could hide any place, name began with an H... can't remember the name.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Look, my point is, you guys exaggerate way too much. Even with the unit names, when you say CA might as well have called them "spear guys" etc. Well in M:TW there were units called "spearmen" or "swordsmen." (if memory serves right) Yet there were not complaints then about unit's names?
I'm looking forward to EB very much, as much as anyone in this forum. It's just very annoying to go through the threads and have people refer to CA with a particular distaste and then hyperbolizing the the units in vanilla. Why did you say flaming war dogs? There is no such unit in vanilla.
well...wiht fanatsy units: chosen swordsmen might be a good example...
and the ENTIRE egyptian army is a:fanatsy or b: used 1000 (jndeed:thousand)before the time period...
it's not all fantasy...but most of their unit descprictions are very vague , like: well trained men, raised from villages to hack away at teh enemy.
the Desert axemen, form vanilla. are complete fiction...
the archers used by rome before the marian reforms..fantasy
Urban cohorts: no military unit
armoured hoplites: very, very vague...
schreeching women?
druids?
Quote:
Look, my point is, you guys exaggerate way too much. Even with the unit names, when you say CA might as well have called them "spear guys" etc. Well in M:TW there were units called "spearmen" or "swordsmen." (if memory serves right) Yet there were not complaints then about unit's names?
ROFL
This is the best part of your post. :laugh4:
And you don't?! i've heard people say "If RTW was what you wanted it to be, you would just watch stuff happen and not be able to interact at all"
~:rolleyes:
The best fantasy units are flaming pigs and wardogs, so i combined them. It was just an example for the love of god.............
ja screeching warhounds, or screeching druids, screeching axemen..those are pretty sweet two
I'm ashamed to admit: graphics. I just can't stand all those games with "great gameplay!" that look like garbage. When home PCs have enough power to run small cities, games should utilize their potential to the fullest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simetrical
Which, sadly, is why I haven't been able to so much as reinstall M:TW since playing R:TW, despite its infinitely superior balance.
Edit: And I just realized I'd completely borked my usage of the word "penultimate". I'd been under the impression it meant "next to first", when it actually means "next to last". English is however my fourth language so I hope I'm forgiven for this linguistic transgression.
We in EB have never said "history over gameplay," or any other such contrary position. We have always felt that this is not a zero sum game, that accuracy and gameplay go hand in hand.
Look at how successful and fun M:TW proved to be. The factions were not balanced, and part of the fun (for me, at least) was playing one of the factions who were described as "Hard" or "Challenging" in the faction description, rather than one of the "Easy" ones.
As a long-time strategy and wargamer, I would simply shake my head if someone made a game about WWII and made the production capabilities, unit capabilities, economy, and so on, of America, Russia, Germany, and the rest all the same, for the sake of "balance." Balance of capabilities has no place in any game that purports to depict a period of history. Balance comes, in successful versions of these games, through differing victory conditions for the various players. If the victory conditions were the same, certain sides would most certainly win.
No one complains when even a beer & pretzels game like Axis & Allies has imbalanced units and faction capabilities. The Total War series can only lose (and has lost) in terms of gameplay by moving in this direction.
well. by balancing could one mean two things:
- different factions: same strength. all factions differ. but are equally strong. so someone might state the seleucids are overpowered at teh start: they get 2x as many provinces as sweboz
-all units are equally strong. in a head to head battle. the outcome of winning is 50% chance. (in this game without phalanxes) in this case seleucids are overpowered, since they have better armor (i believe i read that somewhere)
-or: nothing is extremely overpowered. units that were historically better, are better..wich is EB's take on balancing, afaik
am i wrong?
Actually by balance I don't mean any sort of homogenous armies or factions - not at all. Strengths and weaknesses are the bread and butter of strategy games, and I whole-heartedly welcome variety in both factions and "army lists". True purists will of course claim that a real strategist will defeat an identical army with superior tactics, but I'm not quite that hardcore and prefer a little variety. I hear it's the spice of life.
What I mean by balance is a general sanity in game design. Take for instance, the Roman legions in R:TW. Sure they may have been historically superior to their contemporaries, but to make them so absurdly good that a trained monkey could become Imperator by 255 B.C. is a bit much. In R:TR, mercenaries are so good and plentiful (and cheap!) that whatever pacification of campaign pace they may have accomplished with their admittedly ingenious AoR system is made redundant as it's no problem at all to recruit full stacks of experienced mercs on the fly.
Then there are little things: is one unit so good that it can dominate the battlefield alone, making the rest of that faction's units obsolete? Does any faction begin with so much territory and/or money (a la Egypt in R:TW) that it will inevitably dominate without player intervention?
These types of issues are sometimes obvious, sometimes subtle, but the disturbing thing is that very few designers actually take the time to consider their implications. It's one of the reasons why I swear by Blizzard's excellent RTS-games - they do balance right, and they certainly don't do it by making every faction/side identical.
Those are my concerns. One of your team already addressed the issue of faction dominance by citing the -ai results, and I'm relieved to hear you're conducting such tests. With such a dedicated staff and community anticipating your mod, I'm sure such issues will be hammered out in due time.
The only "balancing" we do is to ensure that given an overall look at two factions' unit lists, no one faction will consistently win due to the 20-unit limit in battles. That is, unit costs may give a faction a great advantage on the campaign map, allowing them to field hordes of cheap units, but since there are artificial limitations on army sizes in battle we need to be aware of then imposing an all but insurmountable obstacle for factions that have lesser, cheaper units as their main forces.
Units will have historical strengths and weaknesses, as best we can determine them, as will army compositions, faction capabilities and economies, and so on.
We will be playing with custom battle costs to make multiplayer fun and challenging.
Edit: Ninefingers, everything we do is geared with an eye toward the game system limitations. Our goal is not to make anything absurdly powerful at all, but to have the capabilities of the faction/unit in context. We have a system for unit stats, for instance - we give ratings based on capabilities of armor and weapons, and set values to add for things like morale based on unit composition, and set bonuses for things like chemicals or noted fanatacism. The unit stats system will be impartial in this respect. Romans were not supermen, and will not be depicted this way.
Having one uber-unit in battle, or one faction that has certain capabilities that allow it to run rampant over the whole map each and every game would not be, in our opinion, historically accurate. It is our opinion that the factions that dominated the world had advantages, yes, but did so through exploiting their advantages. Good leaders, the outcomes of certain battles, weather, and many things contributed to history; in our mod you can change history. Some factions will be powerful, but not so powerful that they always win, and a good leader will change the world.
I don't consider that balance, so perhaps this is simply a semantic misunderstanding.
What about Warcraft II?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninefingers
blizzard's diabloII is well balanced..at teh start.
Ah, but the Diablo series aren't RTS games.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerby
Well, the spells were different. And so were the missions. And I could've sworn that there was a five-point difference between the attack ratings of Elven Destroyers and Troll Destroyers. But pretty much, yeah . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
-Simetrical
You mean the Human Destroyers? Nah, they were identical too. The Elven Rangers did have an upgrade for +3 damage, though, and the Berserker had a regeneration upgrade. The spells were different..but very similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simetrical
Warcraft II was a joke, most of the units had the exact same stats just different models. Ogres and Knights anyone? The way the Ogres ran to be the same speed as mounted Knights was hilarious.
actually, wc2 wasn't balanced at all because of bloodlust. online, anyone playing human v orc was only doing so to see if they were skilled enough to break the orc player before they got ogre magi. it was a way to challenge yourself, but you had no illusions.
paladins v ogre magi was the only imbalance, iirc (there might have been a smaller one with the other casters), but it was a huge one that essentially broke the balance of the whole game.
i had to get that off my chest. ~:)
I had no complaints with WC2 back in the day. I loved that game. I didn't have internet connection yet so all I did was play against the cpu.
How can historical accuracy could harm the gameplay ? EB moders wants a game based on history , you don't like it - don't play it ! I prefer as much accuracy as they can achieve , why ? I love history and strategy games .
Ah yes , give the greeks some aircrafts to balance the game... ~;)
If the romans had the best army in those days , let it be ! it is more challenging to beat them . :duel:
By the time you have ogre magi, Bloodlust didn't matter. Numbers did. I played a game with a friend of mine the other day - any ogre who was given bloodlust was almost immediately slain, sometimes having landed a single blow first, sometimes without an electric punch. The Runes were far more effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
WC3 has good balance. The Bliz team is always hard at work to ensure balance between races.
The only aspect of WC3 I hate is the mirco managment of all the damn units. My fingers are not quick enough to make multiple commands, even with hot keys. The strategy in WC3 is also a bit retarded. No hitting from the side, having 10 units attack 1 etc... always bugged me.
Nice thing about WC2 was it took little managment.
Although the group management was a nuisance. Only nine units per grouping = teh suxxorz.
No, Elven Destroyers, which fight on the human side. The elves joined up with Azeroth, Lordaeron, and the rest to repel the Horde, after all, just as the orcs brought allies with them from Draenor and picked up more in Azeroth. Not everyone in the Alliance was human, you racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neon God
-Simetrical
The same Elven Destroyer that has the English guy who is the same as the footman tell you not to rock the boat before he ralphs over the side?Quote:
Originally Posted by Simetrical
Okay, fine. I hate elves. You've exposed me.
The grouping wasn't so bad once you assign numbers to the groups. Even better, tell groups 2 through 0 each to follow a different member of group 1. Your whole army is on the move and guaranteed to jam up hopelessly within seconds.
Just a few points.
1. To all you people who say "RTR ignores barbarians", that is partially. True. Up to now, Barbs have been left out(the Illyrians are half-barbs). However, in 7.0 they are planning to focus more on barbs.
2. I hope either RTR or EB adds the Mauryans. They easily encompased the Indus plain, as well as were one of the most powerful empires of their times, and controlled alot of land.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...MauryanMap.jpg
Even if their ENTIRE faction isn't in the mod, I still think they need to be represented. I personally would have added them instead of Bactria/Baktria, seeing how they were much more influential.
It is unfair and ahistorical to add just half a faction. When you think of how much more powerful the Turks could have been in MTW, or Parthians in vanilla...
Bavor, Prometheus will have the Mauryans in his RES GESTAE mod.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=50355