What are the main things you want to see fixed from EB1 in EB2???

Not sure if this is possible......but I would like to see cavalry charge through and out of the other side of the unit they are engaging....or at least a chance of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HFox

Not sure if this is possible......but I would like to see cavalry charge through and out of the other side of the unit they are engaging....or at least a chance of this.

---

I wouldn't know how to do that. I imagine it would be a little work with collision detection, mass, and so forth. That would be heavy stuff. I don't think anyone on the team is in a position to do that with the current workload. We would really need to look for outside help on that.

Do you best on the campaign and battle AI! I think is the most important aspects of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HFox

Not sure if this is possible......but I would like to see cavalry charge through and out of the other side of the unit they are engaging....or at least a chance of this.

---

There is a chance of this it's called a... ... ... successful charge! ;D



But about my idea: A comprehensive weapons stat index. Such as Gladius -, Sarissa -, Chainmail -, Lorica Hamataa -, etc. etc. etc...

Dunno if someone already pointed out this, but M2TW diplomacy and AI are not that of RTW, right?

They are in fact very moddable (there are many and very different AIs on TWC and other fan sites).

To some people, try to visit TW Center to inform you about M2TW modding before posting false infos as they were well known facts.

Diplomacy is still the same (only you now get an indication of the answer), and not moddable at all. BAI en CAI are somewhat moddable, but not very.

CAI can be moddable to a reasonable spot so that's not a really big problem. BAI... I dunno. There are groups out there that claim that the AI is much better though I haven't seen a good formation AI.

Bear with me if this is not possible (I've never played Medieval 2) or has already been discussed, but the biggest problem in EB for me, and is in fact a problem in all Total War games I've played, is the lack of internal civil wars in factions. This is why we see the Ptolemies become so powerful most of the time in EB 1. This is why you can have a king with the charisma and martial skill of a dead crocodile and still conquer the world. This is why I (and probably many other players) often lost interest in a campaign after about 50 years, with no civilization that can harm me and no potential civil wars. I recall Barbarian Invasion vanilla having the most rudimentary of concepts for this (with Roman Empire rebels cropping up and whatnot), but it wasn't great. If only the Creative Assembly would take some hints from Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis: Rome, we'd have a game that is wonderfully immersive and realistic in more aspects of why battles are fought, rather than just focusing on increasing the graphical quality of the battlefield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tux

I want to see the Lorica Segmentata!!!

---

Forget about it. totally! The lorica segmentata came of use around 9 BC. From 9 BC to 14 AD, where the script stops, isn't a preiod long enough to justify a new imperial unit!

So, get used to the lorica hamata!

Isn't Tux an EB member? So I think that was a joke...

If yours is a joke too, please make it a more obvious one the next time.

Yes, Tux is a long time member of the team. He was quoting the daring new historical argument that has forced us to rethink our whole position on Lorica Segmentata.

What I would really like to see fixed is....a fast release date :P

Quote:

---

Bear with me if this is not possible (I've never played Medieval 2) or has already been discussed, but the biggest problem in EB for me, and is in fact a problem in all Total War games I've played, is the lack of internal civil wars in factions. This is why we see the Ptolemies become so powerful most of the time in EB 1. This is why you can have a king with the charisma and martial skill of a dead crocodile and still conquer the world. This is why I (and probably many other players) often lost interest in a campaign after about 50 years, with no civilization that can harm me and no potential civil wars. I recall Barbarian Invasion vanilla having the most rudimentary of concepts for this (with Roman Empire rebels cropping up and whatnot), but it wasn't great. If only the Creative Assembly would take some hints from Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis: Rome, we'd have a game that is wonderfully immersive and realistic in more aspects of why battles are fought, rather than just focusing on increasing the graphical quality of the battlefield.

---

There will be some form of representation of internal strife within factions. How it works exactly, I can't say (and I don't really know, actually :clown:)

Quote:

---

This is why we see the Ptolemies become so powerful most of the time in EB 1. This is why you can have a king with the charisma and martial skill of a dead crocodile

---

I see what you did there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

There will be some form of representation of internal strife within factions. How it works exactly, I can't say (and I don't really know, actually :clown:)

---

Ooohh...I'm intrigued, sounds good. I think, in all honesty, the only real weakness of EB1 is the diplomatic/political side - and that's not really the fault of the EB team, simply a limitation of the R:TW engine. If that aspect is significantly improved then.....EB2 is going to be something else....as one poster said, there should be a better representation of the why of warfare, as well as the how.

If there was one thing that I would want to see, that I think is lacking in EB1 (and this might not be possible) is some way of representing guerilla tactics. Ambushes should catch armies spread out, for example - not in battle formation... or reconaissance (cavalry) units, and in enemy territory, foraging parties.

It's good to see you now are an actual EB team member (instead of an 'auxiliary') Hax, congratulations!

And I'm very interested in the way EB is going to handel civil strife, it's one of the hardest things to represent well. BC 3.0 has what seems like a good system, but it could be too 'artificial'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

If there was one thing that I would want to see, that I think is lacking in EB1 (and this might not be possible) is some way of representing guerilla tactics. Ambushes should catch armies spread out, for example - not in battle formation...

---

Thats actually possible in M2TW. I was as surprised as my enemy when my King of Norway caught an enemy force in marching formation. The where standing in a long line while I was able to position my troops on every other place of the battlefield, I could attack them from the sides and crushed them. But I was not able to do this again, mainly because I play EB again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rahl

Thats actually possible in M2TW. I was as surprised as my enemy when my King of Norway caught an enemy force in marching formation. The where standing in a long line while I was able to position my troops on every other place of the battlefield, I could attack them from the sides and crushed them. But I was not able to do this again, mainly because I play EB again.

---

Eh? This is what always happens when an ambush is successful, in both RTW and M2TW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Eh? This is what always happens when an ambush is successful, in both RTW and M2TW.

---

Really? I have succesfully ambushed (and been ambushed) and wouldn't say that the ambushed armies fairly represent an army on the move.

Than your ambush wasn't successful 100%. If it is, your would have get the situation bobbin was referring to, but otherwise the enemy would have time to organize his army. This feature is hardcoded both in RTW as in MTW2.

XSamatan

Thanks.... I've obviously been unlucky. I look forward to some proper guerilla tactics.... Does it make a difference what sort of units are ambushing, or is it purely chance (if you know..)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Eh? This is what always happens when an ambush is successful, in both RTW and M2TW.

---

Oh...
I never saw that before, are there other conditions to be met? Like the army wants to move where your ambushing troops are standing or the tile next to them?
I didn't ambush that often, but I had successful ones and never saw that, do you need at least an good ambusher as general?

I've had enemy armies led by captains ambush me and it should be moving into any tile next to the ambushing army that springs it.

One thing that i find annoying is when you have spotted the ambush and you go to fight and the screen pops up saying you were ambushed.

I hope this thread is not dead and someone reads this!
Aside from factions,ai problems and all the other big problems i'have a little request: i'd like to see a little more blood and guts on the battlefield... it's all soo clean! kinda irrealistic if you ask me... also it could be optional like the guys in the nude.
of course this is not a priority, it just would be very cool if one of those nake really strong guys after ripping a roman soldier apart could be red and drenching in blood... or even just seeing it on the floor would be nice!

We talked internally about this aspect, and came to the conclusion to be as near to reality as possible, meaning there won't be great blood rivers in battles, but you will 'see' wounds and dirt on units.
But, yeah, as you said, that is a very low priority...;)

XSamatan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSamatan

We talked internally about this aspect, and came to the conclusion to be as near to reality as possible, meaning there won't be great blood rivers in battles, but you will 'see' wounds and dirt on units.
But, yeah, as you said, that is a very low priority...;)

XSamatan

---

Aaaahh...is that what the marks are on the Boii and Getai preview vids...I did wonder.

No that's the skins.

CTD removal is probably the biggest one.

But I'd like to see the 'C's replaced with 'K's in from maps and Faction graphics for Hellenikoi factions (for example, Arche Seleukeia -> Arkhe Seleukeia), as well as from the text files (although these I can alter myself). The same applies with 'U's and 'V's for the Romani. Finally, as some others have said, I would tone down the AI Money Script and/or find further means to make blockades and economic warfare more painful and effective against the AI.

I may be wrong but afaik the c in Arche (or many other transcripted greek words) belongs to the greek letter CHI which is transcribed ch rather than X.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alcibiades14

But I'd like to see the 'C's replaced with 'K's in from maps and Faction graphics for Hellenikoi factions (for example, Arche Seleukeia -> Arkhe Seleukeia), as well as from the text files (although these I can alter myself). The same applies with 'U's and 'V's for the Romani.

---

Get yourself a book about historical linguistics, read it, and post again.

so I was right?

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SillySirius

I've had enemy armies led by captains ambush me and it should be moving into any tile next to the ambushing army that springs it.

One thing that i find annoying is when you have spotted the ambush and you go to fight and the screen pops up saying you were ambushed.

---

You have to "spring" the Ambush. Send in a single unit ahead and enter as reinforcements or enter the battle and retreat- the ambush is then sprung and your main engaging army is free to attack without ambush.

Main difference I'd like to see for EB2 is that foot skirmishers are handled differently. It should be possible now with generally slower speeds of infantry that the harrying ability of skirmishers is a bit better modeled. Not sure the mechanics are totally friendly to this but... hopefully something can be done. If most skirmishers can also get bonus in more terrains(not all obviously but more broad than single terrain unless that is all that culture likely ever experienced) and then other units get more negative values for some terrains as well.

EDIT:Changed point of post

I has idears

1)Use a similar campaign AI as Graculs, Lusteds, etc from Stainless Steel
2)Remove Merchants, don't even think about them
and a question

What are you going to do with princesses? As I understand it there were some princesses being married off between the hellenes.

my absolute biggest complaint is that i never feel like i am doing damage to an enemy due to their self destructive A.I but i guess that's just an A.I. problem.

The spamming of elites reallllly makes killing them not as a great achievement but as a chore. When you see Agema on the battlefield you should say "woah", and to rout an enemy agema or similar elite should be a relatively big accomplishment. in EB its nothing but Extraodinarii/Hanupim/Agema/Silver Shield/Bronze Shield/Epilektoi Hoplite and really takes down the value of these elite units.

I do like the way the MTW system is being used to make the process of arming your citizens and sending them to war (citizens being quite rare) by limiting recruitment of elites and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSamatan

Get yourself a book about historical linguistics, read it, and post again.

---

I realize that your comment was partly dismissive, but do you have a book you would recommend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

I may be wrong but afaik the c in Arche (or many other transcripted greek words) belongs to the greek letter CHI which is transcribed ch rather than X.

---

Wait, who said anything about X?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alcibiades14

Wait, who said anything about X?

---

It's not uncommon to see a confusion of X, KH, CH, and so on. Orthography, transcription, and IPA representations are three different things and easily confused when thrown out there without any further description. The transcription Arche can be (mis)read in a variety of ways. If one reads the the last consonant in that term as the Ancient Greek X (chi, regardless of which transcription you use), you'd get either a fricative (turbulent sound such as in the first consonant of the or shame) or a stop (the first consonant in kite). I know there was a shift to the latter since modern Hellenophones pronounce a stop, but I don't think there is consensus on when this shift occurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alcibiades14

I realize that your comment was partly dismissive....

---

No it is not, saying something while having no arguments at hand to support your point of view and furthermore postulate a theory like yours, well, that's imprudent at least.

If you tell me you native tongue I surely can suggest a book about this topic.

XSamatan

Why need a book? There isn't anyone in the world who'd transcribe a chi by a kh. Alcibiades14, while a Kappa might be best be transcribed as a k, and not as a c (like the k sound is written in latin). The c's in our Greek do not represent the k-sound of a kappa. It's the ch sound of the Greek letter chi, often transliterated as an x, which we transcribed as ch.

Look here for a table containing the most common ways of transliterations of Greek to a Latin alphabet (this way you don't have to find yourself that book):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transli...Latin_Alphabet
Now the ch from arche represents the Chi of classical Greek, the third last letter from the first table. As you can see, it's transliterated and transcribed as a 'ch'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

It's not uncommon to see a confusion of X, KH, CH, and so on. Orthography, transcription, and IPA representations are three different things and easily confused when thrown out there without any further description. The transcription Arche can be (mis)read in a variety of ways. If one reads the the last consonant in that term as the Ancient Greek X (chi, regardless of which transcription you use), you'd get either a fricative (turbulent sound such as in the first consonant of the or shame) or a stop (the first consonant in kite). I know there was a shift to the latter since modern Hellenophones pronounce a stop, but I don't think there is consensus on when this shift occurs.

---

Ah. My understanding, which I'm by no means sure is correct, had been that X is simply an aspirated kappa--in which case it seemed, to me, anyway, more natural to use "kh," to specify that it is not a fricative. Of course, I'd defer to you guys on that, but it struck me as odd when I saw "ch" in-game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSamatan

No it is not, saying something while having no arguments at hand to support your point of view and furthermore postulate a theory like yours, well, that's imprudent at least.

If you tell me you native tongue I surely can suggest a book about this topic.

XSamatan

---

My apologies, then--clearly, I misread your tone. My native tongue is English, and if you have a historical linguistics book you'd particularly recommend, I would really appreciate it, as I'm building a summer reading list.

In any case, I do stand by my wish to see more effectual blockades and economic warfare in EB2, although I recognize that it isn't easy to balance that out with monetary assistance scripts, which I assume are going to return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alkibiades14

Ah. My understanding, which I'm by no means sure is correct, had been that X is simply an aspirated kappa--in which case it seemed, to me, anyway, more natural to use "kh," to specify that it is not a fricative. Of course, I'd defer to you guys on that, but it struck me as odd when I saw "ch" in-game.

---

You're right to think as you do. From what little understanding I do have of Greek as it stands today, your orthographic X would (at least usually) be pronounced as a voiceless velar stop, and in the case of Greek you're probably right in that it's aspirated as in the 'k' in kite, not unaspirated as the 'k' in sky.

Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (Studies in Language Companion Series, V. 12.) - Harm Pinkster (Editor)

A Natural History of Latin - Tore Janson

These could be a good try, but a search at your local university/school library about "latin linguistics" could provide more results too.

XSamatan

You also might want to look at the series of papers released about Latin linguistics known as the "selected papers from the Nth International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics" (mainly late 80s early 90s; N can be the first, second, I've even seen one for the sixth colloquium).

Well there's really not many issues I have with EB1.

One thing I'd like to see fixed is stability, but I guess when you're pushing an enginge to the limit(s), like EB does, that's just what comes along with it...
But I have gotten used to saving before hitting the "End Turn" button and before every battle... it's still annoying when you've just finished a battle against 2.500 Gauls, worked hard to overcome them and then the game crashes but at least you don't lose much more ;)

The MTW2 environment and its engine are much more stable than RTW 1.5; at least CTD's after battles won't be that usual anymore but also bugs coming from other RTW specific issues won't appear anymore.

Isn't it nice that most of the more heinous issues with EB are fixed by simply -being- on M2TW? The horrible Campaign AI and CTD's, poof, gone!

Also, is there any possible way to implement a "new homeland" item that allows recruitment of factional troops in level 3/4 areas? Like Greece producing hoplites in Britain. I'm thinking after "assimilating" the culture it should be possible, like building a level 3 temple, a level 3 factional barracks, and a "cultural" building? (IE Heo Shrine, Odeon or something)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf The Great

Also, is there any possible way to implement a "new homeland" item that allows recruitment of factional troops in level 3/4 areas? Like Greece producing hoplites in Britain. I'm thinking after "assimilating" the culture it should be possible, like building a level 3 temple, a level 3 factional barracks, and a "cultural" building? (IE Heo Shrine, Odeon or something)

---

Things will change massively in EBII, so Allied Provinces don't exist anymore.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Things will change massively in EBII, so Allied Provinces don't exist anymore.

Foot

---

No client rulers then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Populus Romanus

No client rulers then?

---

I was referring to the government resources (Homeland, Subjugation, Allied) not the government buildings.

Foot

will their be mechanics to represent degrees of assimilation rather than just the generic 'unrest' feature? i know that MTWII has religion and such.

also, how will the '-ization' process work? I hate when i take a city like Carthage, for instance, but it is at its highest level of Administration building so that even long after the culture/government would be romanized, it would still have mostly semitic buildings? I really like hellenizing europe, and for RTW the Strategy Map representation changes at the next level of government building, which usually coincides with the end of huge culture penalties

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSamatan

The MTW2 environment and its engine are much more stable than RTW 1.5; at least CTD's after battles won't be that usual anymore but also bugs coming from other RTW specific issues won't appear anymore.

---

Now that is something I am really looking forward too :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

I was referring to the government resources (Homeland, Subjugation, Allied) not the government buildings.

---

SO there will still be different government types and also those representing client kingdoms, right? 'Cause I was a bit shocked by that last post that said there won't be allied provinces

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

will their be mechanics to represent degrees of assimilation rather than just the generic 'unrest' feature? i know that MTWII has religion and such.

also, how will the '-ization' process work? I hate when i take a city like Carthage, for instance, but it is at its highest level of Administration building so that even long after the culture/government would be romanized, it would still have mostly semitic buildings? I really like hellenizing europe, and for RTW the Strategy Map representation changes at the next level of government building, which usually coincides with the end of huge culture penalties

---

Those are two very different things how a settlement looks is not associated with any game mechanics that we can introduce and modify as for colonization, you should probably check out the roman previews-

Foot

I'm rather pleased with EB 1, my only wish would be better (historically more accurate, I mean) Greek units. I think that will happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

historically more accurate

---

What does this mean anymore? History has room for more than one interpretation. That is why when 20 students turn in papers for a single prompt, and none of them answers the same way as any other, none of them fails for the simple fact that they did not achieve a single correct answer. EB has provided us with an interpretation of history that--and it is important to remember this--has not been constant, and has changed over time. I don't take it for granted because when entering in factional unit lists for EB Online I see name changes over and over again for units. Flexibility is a great trait in history.

anything in particular you would like to suggest?

I suppose another thing I'd wish for is a more complete barbarian roster, an perhaps a "reformed pastoralism" government for the other nomads and possibly the barbarians.

a more full Barbarian roster would definitely help, mid-late game are very rough on Barbarian factions. As eastern factions, Pahlava in particular, you keep getting new units until the very end.

This is an issue with everyone except the Getai i'd say, but in particular with the Lusotan. a very basic and effective roster, but after you can train Celtiberian Infantry you are kind of out on soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

a more full Barbarian roster would definitely help, mid-late game are very rough on Barbarian factions. As eastern factions, Pahlava in particular, you keep getting new units until the very end.

This is an issue with everyone except the Getai i'd say, but in particular with the Lusotan. a very basic and effective roster, but after you can train Celtiberian Infantry you are kind of out on soldiers.

---

How can this be an issue for the gauls? They have two reforms during the span of the game! The casse have reforms as well and the Sweboz also unlock some units. The Iberians might not have reforms to offer but a very diverse selection of regionals and perhaps the best barbarian units. With their ap falcata's, ap soliferra and lots of armour for a barbarian faction!

perhaps the span is just too close together, doesn't take long to conquer Iberian Peninsula and beyond that there isn't much of interest. Maybe I'm just using the unfair comparison of Pahlavan which has such a wide roster, from every Indian Unit to the long term reform. I had almost completed the game before i had Persian Hoplites and Theurophoroi.

It's also the buildings that are the problem too.
Factions like Romani and Pahlava have an obscene amount of buildings to choose that give a wide range of effects(+health +trade +mining) while the Barbarians, in comparison, get very very little with no real advantage on their part. It's true that during this period none of the barbarian factions(with the exception of the Getai, who -really- need an building tune up) achieved the level of sophistication that the others did, but they should get a "what if" reform similar to Hayasdan's.

Especially with Sauromatae and Saka Rauka I get the feeling that "Well I can just play Pahlava/Hayasdan/Baktria and get all this plus more"

What I'd like to see is mercenary ships and some more thorough reforms for the Saka faction (i.e. not only the military aspect).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

How can this be an issue for the gauls? They have two reforms during the span of the game! The casse have reforms as well and the Sweboz also unlock some units. The Iberians might not have reforms to offer but a very diverse selection of regionals and perhaps the best barbarian units. With their ap falcata's, ap soliferra and lots of armour for a barbarian faction!

---

Lusotannan are also the only Barbarian faction able to recruit siege weapons.

Well iirc (I haven't played M2TW seriously in a long time) the engine had mercenary ships... at least when on a crusade I definitely remember recruiting mercenary ships to get to the Holy Land... so it should be possible - if it's reasonable or makes sense is up to the team ;)

right but the logistics of that; "hey let me plant my huge army here and wait patiently until a ship comes by"
it never made sense to me in MTWII

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

right but the logistics of that; "hey let me plant my huge army here and wait patiently until a ship comes by"
it never made sense to me in MTWII

---

If we're talking frequented, busy ports that were points of launch for major campaigns a la crusades, then it's quite reasonable, if you can afford it (you're probably the king).

is there a way to restrict the recruitment to just ports or that area? i could hire boats anywhere on the coast of MTWII.

more sensible than beeing stuck on land with a huge army and plenty of wood until a city far away is captured. it sure would be less iritating when you'd have the option to "build" them over the construction menu. one could nerf the hireable ships to let them better represent this mix of on-spot crafted vessels and more reliable pirates.

ok, that definitely makes more sense. i didn't consider that could just be a representation of them using resources around them, chiefly 60,000 bored soldiers and wood to create them.

herm soldiers building boats right so how many will drown :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

ok, that definitely makes more sense. i didn't consider that could just be a representation of them using resources around them, chiefly 60,000 bored soldiers and wood to create them.

---

Yeah but think of the turn length... months are going by. In that period a message couldn't be sent ordering a fleet? Also each ship has to represent more than a single boat. Could be anywhere from barges to bireme to a fleet of local fishing boats. MTW2 engine isn't sohpisticated enough to really deal with the logistics so its abstracted enough otherwise you get into Paradox style games where you have to plan the logistics ahead of the campaign which is realistic to an extent but is that something you want to do in MTW2?

I'm not sure if this is possible or already suggested, but I'll be glad to see the "size effect" of an army simulated in some way. By this I mean a huge army is much more difficult and expensive to maintain than when it is separated into several smaller columns, and as its size increases, it becomes more cumbersome and marches slower. This will force you to disperse your forces and only concentrate them when preparing for a massive battle ahead, instead of always running around the map at the head of a full stack.

This sounds good, although I doubt, that it's possible in the limits of the engine, to accurately simulate that...
What could be possible is attrition, it was a "feature" in crusaders armies, so maybe it could be implemented to simulate long marches without supply lines...

herm julianus in mtw2 if you separate your armies 10/20% of them will rebel depending on your faction leader influence so spliting armies will be a dangerous game

The one thing I would like to see in EB2 is the ability to establish new homelands for my people. Like say I'm playing Sweboz and want to recreate the cimbric migration, will it be possible to colonize other lands and recruit factional troops?

i've seen this done manually (Arche to Britain of all people and places :P) so perhaps a script can do this as well? i've always felt limited in this regard, like im sure after 100 years under Roman Hegemony Iberia felt like a true part of the Empire? perhaps like a 50 turn migration type of thing like the nomads can do, after a certain amount of x population of x culture build x amount of cultural buildings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

i've always felt limited in this regard, like im sure after 100 years under Roman Hegemony Iberia felt like a true part of the Empire?

---

Well other than it took the Romans about 200 years to subdue the local inhabitants. And it certainly did feel like part of the empire, but that certainly doesn't mean you could recruit italians there.

Foot

but the concept of citizen and being 'roman' extended beyond the italian peninsula by that time, correct?

Well I was thinking more like transplanting Italians to Iberia rather than assimilating Iberians.

Like how long did it take for the Galatians to establish themselves in Galatia to the point where we are recruiting celts there at the EB start point? Same with greeks establishing themselves as far east as bactria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

but the concept of citizen and being 'roman' extended beyond the italian peninsula by that time, correct?

---

Hence Marian recruitment. Other factions did not have anything similar.

Quote:

---

Like how long did it take for the Galatians to establish themselves in Galatia to the point where we are recruiting celts there at the EB start point? Same with greeks establishing themselves as far east as bactria.

---

The Galations were a migration. An entire population just moving from one place and settling down into another. Transplating italians to Iberia did happen in the form of colonies, but the percentage of italians was tiny compared to the native population. As has previously been previewed, colonies will exist in EBII, and will allow you to change recruitment.

Foot

that's awesome, most people roleplay that anyway so it's nice to see it cemented via mechanics.

@ Ca Putt: I don't want to start a discussion about units here, therefore I don't mentioned examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

What does this mean anymore? History has room for more than one interpretation. That is why when 20 students turn in papers for a single prompt, and none of them answers the same way as any other, none of them fails for the simple fact that they did not achieve a single correct answer. EB has provided us with an interpretation of history that--and it is important to remember this--has not been constant, and has changed over time. I don't take it for granted because when entering in factional unit lists for EB Online I see name changes over and over again for units. Flexibility is a great trait in history.

---

Surely, I concur with what you said. We have sometimes so few informations that a good deal of speculation is mandatory, esp. for a game and its restrictions. I only had some problems in mind that are possibly caused by the early introduction of some of the Greek/Hellenistic units. E.G. to have peltasts with thoureoi shields and thoureophoroi is such a problem. EB2 should get rid of the peltasts and install thoureophoroi with javelins instead. And a thoureophoros should not have much armour, with armour it should be a thorakites. Or the padded armour of the Cretan archers. The only pictures of Hellenistic time Cretan archers show them without armour, and if armour is given to them because of gameplay reasons (which are important reasons) it should perhaps be one that is more common for the Greeks and at least shown in some ancient illustrations. Or the rather strange Akarnanian attack unit. Or the appearance of the chitones and the Roman caligae of many Greek units.

Small things like this. The possibility of M2:TW units to show more than one appearance will solve many problems and I think the team is aware of the problems. We had such discussions before, no need to warm it up. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

Or the padded armour of the Cretan archers.

---

I'd rather see a source for the extreme missile range they have in EB I.

Quote:

---

Or the rather strange Akarnanian attack unit.

---

Which unit are you referring to? Akarnania doesn't have a regional special unit in EB I as far as I'm aware of. Perhaps you mean Agrianian?