well with the "factions emerging" parthia can be done right.
Printable View
well with the "factions emerging" parthia can be done right.
Combined with 5-10 more faction slots (come on, how hard can it be?) the features of this would clinch it for me.
See, the thing is, I would pay way more than £20 for EB, or pretty much any good mod in development. What I'm gonna go is buy BI, copy another data file and use it as just another quality mod (cus thats the way i'm looking at it, just another mod) if it has features that lead other mods to incorporate it, Ill have it so i'll be set. it's all good.
But I wouldn't be able to play as them. And they are done more or less correctly in EB, more than how CA did it.Quote:
well with the "factions emerging" parthia can be done right.
Sounds like BI will give you guys a lot to work with. I look forward to it!
And the solution is easy: just buy it! The expansion will only make EB and other mods better, so why boycott it or do any of that silly stuff? Its not like it hurts the developer/publisher if one person(ok, i'll give it to you: 10 people) decide not to buy their new product... :dizzy2:
The shield wall and faction emerging sound very cool, but i hope they remove the faction and unit limits as well.
The decision to move onto BI will depend purely on what BI has to offer, as determined post-release. We want to make our mod the best it can be, and if BI offers us very attractive ways to do that, fans will have to make individual decisions about whether or not they wish to buy BI and continue receiving updates to EB.
maybe he means that EB would be able to represent parthia 'emerging' from seleukid rule better with the BI functionality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
i think EB has already stated somewhere that they feel no need to boycott the expansion, so the boycotters will need to take that into consideration. we'll have to wait and see whether the expansion will even offer much of use to EB. however, there will most likely be a more-or-less complete version of EB for the non-expansion RTW anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
edit: err.. what khelvan said. :blank2:
does this mean that even with IB we(EB) wil still play the same timeframe? 280BC-10AC?Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
I would suspect so. Though I know many of our team would like to do other periods as well, especially the fall of Rome, and others have plans for mods such as c. 300 BC British Isles, we have only so much time and so many resources.
Well if I remember correctly MTW was lacking many things in the form of AI and stability until VI came out... so I see no reason to boycott an expansion that we don't know anything about in terms of modability. Thats why I think many modders have remained aloof in such affairs that many in the TW community have been pushing.
They will have to raise some of the hardcoded limits to make BI working with the current imperial campaign in one game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I don`t really understand why so many people have definetly decided to boycot the expansion before it is released. If it`s not worth the money for you than ok, but it sounds unfair to judge an unfinished product.
while the theory behind the boycott is sound (though one may disagree with the premise), we won't know for sure what avenues the expansion will open up for modders. if the expansion truly does not improve the modability of the game, then i doubt EB (or other mods) will adopt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
keeping model/skin/etc limits in place does not mean the expansion won't open up new avenues for modders (e.g. new formations, civil wars, emerging factions, etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
so, i'll repeat: "we won't know for sure what avenues the expansion will open up for modders. if the expansion truly does not improve the modability of the game, then i doubt EB (or other mods) will adopt it."
The other thousands and thousands of the rest of us who don't give three-sevenths of a flying flip about the boycott (in addition to the 70% of the petition-signers who you and I both know will buy the xpak anyway) would appreciate it if EB examined every option to make the mod better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
While I share some of your frustration with RTW's shortcomings and I understand the reasoning behind your actions, asking EB to deny the best possible mod to those of us who choose not to participate in your boycott is nothing short of selfish. Well, asking is not really selfish, but continuing to press them on the issue even after they have said no... that is. And it is not appreciated by the rest of us or the EB team itself, believe me.
Well they will HAVE to raise the faction limit to add ~20 factions that aren't in vanilla. And I bet they will have to raise the model and unit limits as well, to accomodate twice as many factions. If (if) EB can take the existing 20 faction spots from vanilla and use the 20 new faction spots in the BI campaign (are they going to be the same 20 spots? I highly doubt it) and combine them into one campaign, that will give them 40 factions to work with. If they only end up using like 28 factions, that will give them an extra 12 factions worth of units and models they can use. Now, province and building limits, I am not sure if there will be a necessity to raise those but we shall see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
So, it seems to me, CA WILL be raising hardcoded limits just to accomodate their new additions, regardless of whether or not it makes the game more moddable. It may not be as good as softcoding, but that is space we can use. In addition, who knows what other cool features will be added in the expansion that can be incorporated into EB (civil wars, senate removal, shieldwall, I am looking at you).
Well I hope that it will help us. I have no love for CA, but I hope that it will help our mod. If it doesn't, then we won't use it. One thing is for sure, I will have no intrest in playing the unmodded version of that game.
Considering the major changes that took place in military and economic organisation in the Late Classis and Early medieval time period, there's bound to be more features than only the ones listed, too. What about the foederati? The Byzantine Themes and Tagmata? I'm looking forward to it.
So BI is going to have 40 factions in it? From what I've read, it's going to have 10 different factions that weren't in RTW. Unless they're retaining every faction from RTW, I don't see why they'd have to change the current limit. I think they'd actually just replace some of the old factions with new ones. New units, new buildings, etc, just means that they'll be different from the ones already in RTW, and probably replacing out-of-date ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheep
I guess we'll know in a few months. ~:handball:
Trainix of Knights:
:charge: :duel: :charge:
I can imagine them not even having to move cultures around too much. Barbarians would become Germans (Franks, Saxons, Goths, Vandals...), Easterners become Steppe (Huns and Sarmatians), etc.
So far there's been very little shown in regards to non-battle engine changes. Hordes and civil wars, that's all...
No themes or tagmata until Heraklios in the 7th century AD. The Eastern Roman army of the day was basically a more Sassanid-oriented version of the Western army. Germanic mercenaries were wholly purged from the army in the 5th century by Theodosius II, IIRC. They also used more Hunnic mercenaries as well, since several civil wars between the Eastern and Western emperors were won by the Eastern augustus because of his more mobile horse archers. A notable exception is the Battle of the Frigid River, where large volumes of Germanic mercenaries fought each other, the 'Visigoths' (which is an incorrect term for the day) on Eastern emperor Theodosius I's side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebus
~Wiz
I am aware of the time period in which Constans II made the Themes & Tagmata reforms; I guess I'm assuming the game will have a suffeciently long time span to cover the early 7th century too. It starts out in the late 4th century, right? Then why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
I'm guessing ol' CA will choose either the date of Atilla's death or the relatively unimportant event of Romulus Augustulus' deposition as end date.
~Wiz
Let's hope not, that's before all the interesting stuff happened... I mean, no Arab conquests 'n all? Bah.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
From official homepage: BI campaign will start 363ad and end 476ad. (End of Romolus Augustulus reign)
I hope they make it 4 turns/year this time, or it will be awfully short...
WTF, things started to get interesting AFTER the fall of Rome...
LIES! Romolus Augustulus didn't die then, he was only dethroned. Alvarik didn't see him as a big enough threat to kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by cunctator
Also: yeah, a lot of interesting stuff happens after the fall of Rome too. M'key, perhaps I overstated it before, but still... I mean, especially in the East it's going to be relatively quiet...
Of course you`re right jebus. He died after 511 ad. Corrected that.
I'll let it go... This time.
Next time I won't be so forgiving!
Tremble! Tremble, mortal!
I don't think Shapur I or II would agree with you on that fact :]Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebus
~Wiz
Well yeah, the Sassanids. That's only one nation :DQuote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Still nowhere nere the fun-potential the Arab invasions have, though.
I don't know, the Byzantine-Sassanid wars were quite epic, and if it weren't for them, the Sassanids would never get so much weakened, making them easy prey for Arabs...
Still, the expansion should at least end with Justinian gaining the throne in Byzantium, that was the really important event in those days, not dethroning some peculiar little local italian ruler...