@Dead Moroz:
I am not sure. You can try, but if it doesn't work, just extract the pak file, it's no trouble at all.
Printable View
@Dead Moroz:
I am not sure. You can try, but if it doesn't work, just extract the pak file, it's no trouble at all.
Update on the work list:
-campaign map/province/city changes:
khelvan
Oleander Ardens
Dead Moroz
...
...
-faction name changes/new faction implementation:
Silver Rusher
...
...
...
-unit changes/new unit implementation/3d and 2d graphics:
I've taken the liberty of subdividing the team in faction groups, according to your interests.
Please PM me if you don't agree with your assignement.
Gauls and Britons:
Vercingetorix
PSYCHO V
reconspy
Germanics:
Stefan the Berserker
...
...
Iberians:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
Dacians and Thracians:
TigerVX
Dead Moroz
...
Scythians/Sarmatians/Parthians:
Dead Moroz
...
...
Other factions (PM me to coordinate):
...
...
...
...
...
...
-battle system changes:
Steppe Merc
Aymar de Bois Mauri
...
...
-naval battle changes:
khelvan
Colovion
...
...
-economic/population model changes:
khelvan
Oleander Ardens
...
...
-Coordination of the EB Historical thread:
Teutonic Knight
Aymar de Bois Mauri
...
...
-Faction and unit Descriptions:
Gauls and Britons:
PSYCHO V
Ranika
Germanics:
Stefan the Berserker
SaFe
...
Iberians:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
Aetolian League (former Greek Cities):
chemchok
...
Dacians and Thracians:
Stormy
...
Scythians/Sarmatians/Parthians:
Steppe Merc
...
Other factions (PM me to coordinate):
Stormy
chemchok
Ranika
Steppe Merc
ick_of_pick
...
...
...
-Gameplay testing and debugging:
Colovion
Ranika
Steppe Merc
Monk
Stormy
chemchok
PSYCHO V
Hagbard la Suede
Salazar
Mr. Juice
Dead Moroz
Post me if you have any doubts about specific assignements within the same work related area
Updated 20:20 - 10/21/04
We want to know the most common look because that is what we have to mod. As you know, RTW doesn't allow variety within a unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Art noveau?!!! LOL :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
After having done some Testing Work i would make the following suggestions
1. Increase Unit Hps for all Units to have Battles last longer, increase Attack of Missiles to have them still be a serious threat
2. Use Movement Modifiers something like that:
grass_short 0.85
grass_long 0.80
sand 0.75
rock 0.70
forest_dense 0.60
scrub_dense 0.65
swamp 0.35
mud 0.65
mud_road 0.90
stone_road 1.00
water 0.40
ice 0.45
snow 0.55
This makes Rough land the Enemy of all organized Formations just as it was in reality thus making the Terrain more important.
Why Making Swamp THAT bad?
Because actually Water slows you down but you normally know what you stand on, in swamp you have to be veryveryvery carefull or try doing it by trial and error as you never knoe if the Ground before is actually ground or just a bit of Mud swimming on the Water.
3.
Kick the following Units
Amazons
Headhurlers
Gaulish Forrester Warband
Druids
All Egyptian Chariots
Headhunting Maidens (scyhtians)
Skirmisher Warband (For Gauls Britons and Germans)
Berserkers
Legionary Cav
Praetorian Cav
Urban Cav
4.
Add Elephants to Egypt
5.
Make the Units
Warband (for Gauls and Britons)
Swordsmen (for Gauls Britons and Germans)
Chosen Swordsmen (for Gauls Britons and Germans) capable of throwing Javelins (1/2 each)
6.
Boost Barb Peasants a bit
7.
Add Corsica Caledonia and Raethia (spelling?)
8.
Give Numidia to Numidia but give other Carthaginian Provinces more Trade goods ( if yet possible)
9.
Let Numidia start as Protectorate of Carthage (possible??)
10. Use Dead Moroz's Skin for Thracians
11. Use TigerVX's Skins for the Ptolemaic Troops
Now that you've mentioned it, we must pay attention to faction colors, or else some units won't be distiguishable in the battlefield.Quote:
Originally Posted by reconspy
Great work, reconspy!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by reconspy
The persons who best know the level of that particualr unit and the person that will integrate that info in the txt files (me, khelvan or someone with that kind of experience).Quote:
Originally Posted by reconspy
IMHO, you're right. Since they are Gauls (although mercs), they should be the most distiguished possible from the Germanic tribes. The shield seems too Germanic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
Aymar de Bois Mauri, alright, most common... Well, that's still a little tricky. There were so many that took helmets that you could argue that they should have helmets. If you really want to do them right though, I'd say, give them a few javelins (so, of course, model some javelins in there with them, and throwing animations), or a spear, and a longsword. The shield, one of two ways that can go for a 'common' look.
A. The oval shield, common, used by pretty much all Gauls and a ton of other people.
B. The 'rectangular' shield, though, the veritical edges should bulge a bit.
These two shields were most common, after that is the hexagonal shields, more than likely German imports, then rectangular shields with rounded corners, and then large round shields. So, A or B would do the trick. If you want some uniformity, I'd recommend A, but the Gaesatae were rather outstanding from the other Gauls, so for sake of making them seem less uniform, I'd go with B.
As for body paint, a lot did it, a lot didn't, that's up to skinners, though, it's probably better not. Since it was supposed to be random smatters, and not a design, it'd not look right to have a whole unit of men who somehow miraculously smeared dye on themselves the same way.
The Lonely Mountain Forge??? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormy
Dwarven Guardian Mask???...... :inquisitive:
Sorry, Stormy, but it is a little to Tolkienish to this thread... :wink2:
OK. Those two units are your department. No need to rush though. And, please, pay attention to the problem of faction colors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vercingetorix
Yes, you're right. Only two weapons. IIRC, the most we can get is a (spear + longsword) or (throwing spear + spear) or (throwing spear + longsword) combination for the Averni Arjos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vercingetorix
hehe No no of those but the site does have these
Celtic Boii Helmet
http://www.thelonelymountainforge.com/celtic22.jpg
Bah, you know what I mean ~;)
What do you mean? The phalanx ability off?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
For the animation, no problem. They only need to use the hoplite animation.
As for turning the phalanx off, it's possible, as long as we can mod the special ability button to another function.
Nope. The Warband, as it is, does not posses the ability to throw their spears. They can only use the spear.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
If we want them to use (throwing spear + sword) they best way is for them to use the legionaire animation.
LOL :grin: Just pulling your leg... :joker:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormy
We can.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
We can. We haven't found how just yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
The most important now is not the regions for training of units, it's the graphical depiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Of course. That is probably just something that slipped khelvan's mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
[QUOTE=Dead Moroz]2. Add leader's portrait and map for every faction (except Senate and rebels) on faction selection screen. I made map for original RTW version so they represent default positions of factions. Use it as temporary variant. When we finally decide the question of factions' start positions I make new maps.
Download rar archive.[QUOTE=Dead Moroz]
This is an Alpha development version, you know? Those things can be implemented later.
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Most fantasy is going in to the trash. That will be taken care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
It is a point that I discussed with khelvan. But for now we're just trying new things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Why use "Total Realism" features? This is the EB MOD. We will modify the map according to History, not according to other MODs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
I would like that too. But I'm not sure if it is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
You want to use Slavic to depict a city name before the slavs appeared on the scene? That is NOT an Historical approach and this MOD is all about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Nope. Sorry. I still find them too fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Still need to compare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Ask khelvan...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
That is one of the things I discussed with khelvan. But there are some reasons for avoiding to temper with the HP. Increasing the HP across the board (as an example +3), will mean that every unit takes 3 times more to destroy. While good, it has it's disadvantages. The max HP for units is 15. Generals have 15HP. You can't give them more through txt editing, only with V&V within the game itself. This means that every unit will be 3 times harder to kill except the Generals, who happen to be already particular vulnerable AI-wise. Percentually, the generals will be much more vulnerable than before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
Swamp shouldn't be so slow. Why? I'll give you an example: in snow, many times, you don't know were you're walking either. There is the chance of an hole, a crevase, etc... even when you think you're in a flat field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
This is an ALPHA version!!! We're in the beggining. That will be taken care of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
And Greek Phalanxs and Companion-style Cavalry, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
As I've said before, the first units included will be Gauls, Britons and Germanics. The rest will follow.
Those units are in reformulation. Be patient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
We're not changing the map just yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
That is work in progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
We would like that. Not sure if it is possible just yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
As I've said before - be patient. His work on that unit isn't finished yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
We will. He hasn't posted in these last few days. But those units still need work too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
.Spartan over at twcenter has done some pretty extensive testing with the navies. He basically found that by increasing build times (+75% I think) and reducing defense values you could get around the "mega fleets" problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index...howtopic=11196
I still feel that the navies need to be redesigned (remove some of the bigger ships, maybe use a fleet concept?) but this works fine until a better solution comes along.
Also check out his AI changes (both are included in the D/L on the first post, they are designed to work with the Total Realism mod though...)
Hope you dont mind me posting here, just wanted to point out some things that might save you some time and testing! :bow:
Then the shield is already correct. What about the hair?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
And that will avoid confusion with the current Woad Warriors (that will be remodeled too).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
I'm sorry, I was unclear. The rectangular shield, I mention, is not the current shield, which has multiple straight edges. It's shaped more like an oval, with the top and bottom flattened out, I believe it's in the picture with the three Gallic warriors, where only one is a Gaesatae. As for the hair, if exposed, it would depend on where they're available. If you want the Gaesatae available in the south of Gaul only, it should be spiked and lyed blonde, if in the north, no, should be in plats or simply worn long and rather disarrayed. If all over Gaul, I'd say yes to spiking, to ease modelling.
If it is of any contribution, not at all. Thank you for the info. We will study it. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by hormiga
OK. Now I see. We don't have one, but as you can see from the Arveni Arjos post by reconspy, it is possible to make a similar one to the three Gauls pic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
I'm thinking of only allowing them to be hirable in Cisalpine Gaul. Therefore, the spiked lime hair will fit just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
That's just as well, and would fit with a lack of body paint, as the remaining nude warriors in Cisalpine Gaul, I don't believe, painted themselves. The rare occurences of them in the north do tend to say a lot were painted up, but then, possibly was influence from the Britons.
Gaius Julius at TWCenter knows how and is currently working on adding this aspect to the TR mod (in the same vein as the MedMods "homelands concept).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
Im sure he would be happy to tell you how to properly use the hidden_resource command.
@Aymar: Didn't want to sound impatient. I just suggested some (as i thought) relativeley easy changes, as i said didn't want to sound impatient, if i did, sorry...
I installed the alpha yesterday and played a few hours with Macedon. I had Notepad open, and I alt-tabbed to it any time I had any relevant feedback for the game. Here are the notes I took:
Macedonia description - awkward first paragraph
impressions of first battle vs brigands
I enjoy the change in movement speed. Not drastic, but noticeable. Feels more realistic. Don't think I'd lower it much more if at all.
Improved defence - was paying too much attention to micromanaging cavalry to notice. However, at end of battle, i did notice i had a few more militia hoplites around than i expected.
impressions of first siege vs rebels (stone walls)
two bad side effects of the decreased movement rate:
- one unit of archers on their walls ensured that one unit of merc hoplites and one unit of milita hoplites were at half strength before reaching walls. Both units were reduced to single digits before getting out of missle range after abandoning their rams. In addition, 20 units from a unit of levy pikemen were killed before reaching the walls with siege tower.
- Two battering rams were destroyed before reaching the gates. In a normal game I would think that at least one of them would have made it with one unit of archers and walls firing at 2 rams and 2 siege towers
impressions from first large battle against Greece
Nothing major, but did notice I paused less. Not sure if its from the decreased movement or increased defence, but it was nice none the less. However, I do think that the cavalry charges may need to be toned down a hair. Although I'm likely not used to using a cavalry unit that has a 15 charge! (light lancers)
After reading them over as well as other's comments, I suggest the following:
- Different movement speed for different terrain
I remember using the terrain to my advantage much more in Medieval. I pretty much ignore it now.
Decrease missle attack values
- Archers are already extremely effective in vanilla RTW. Reduced movement speeds only amplify this.
- Increase the damage that siege equipment can take
Again, side effect of decreased movement rate.
- Try incrementing defence up a little more in the next version
I didn't really notice any benefit of the +2 defence. However, I do think that augmenting defence will likely be the best way to decrease kill rates. I agree with Aymar's comments about increasing hit points, and on the TWCenter boards many people have animation problems with mods that adjust the rate of attack.
After playing with the alpha for a while, I second the increase of Defense a little more, but because of that, I recommend keeping the missile attack values what they are. Missile troops should be a big threat, making using cavalry to combat them a more important strategy.
I didn't notice any real change in naval combat.
If the damage siege equipment can take can be increased, I'd much like that. I find it upsetting how speedily my rams and towers collapse, and the slower speeds does make it more of an issue (though base RTW I feel had this problem anyway)
Everyone who is testing and providing suggestions based on the testing, READ THIS:
1) First and foremost, Europa Barbarorum aims to be historically accurate. ALL decisions are made in that light. When making a suggestion, please cite a source which supports your suggestion, preferably from a period map or reputable historian, ideally from a primary period source.
2) Europa Barbarorum will not be copying things from other modifications. It has been in development for at least six months and while we respect the work of other mods we have our own goals, objectives, and ideas of how to get there, and an existing body of work.
3) When testing and making suggestions, please do it in the light of end results. For battles, what you like about the battles, what you don't like. Provide specifics about why things aren't working, and what you think the results should look like. Those of us working on the battles and such have a good idea right now of what data can be tweaked and what can't be, and are playing with the methods to get to a more acceptable -end result- and game play. Let us know if the results are what they need to be, and if we need help on the methods to get there, we'll ask. :)
4) Last, but not least, thank you. All of you.
As you can see from point 1) above, it is time to get tough. Pedantic posts are always welcome.
I will make your correction of Ptolemies; I know little of the Ptolemaic Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
However, I do not accept your suggestion to name the Aetolians the Greeks. The Seleucids, the Macedons, and really most of the factions around the Aegean and beyond are all successors of Alexander's empire, and are more or less ALL Greek. How is it any more -historical- to call ONE of these factions "Greek" when they ALL are? We might as well toss out all the factions and just have five or so big ones, including Roman, Greek, Barbarian...do you see my point?
Historically, the Aetolian League and Sparta fought bitterly against Macedon and the Achaean league. Macedon should not control Corinth, the Achaean League should. Macedon in its current representation is both Macedon -and- the Achaean League, so it makes sense for her rival to be called the Aetolian League. I added cities that I believe were historically under the banner of, or in league with (forgive the pun), the Aetolian League. For instance, Pyrrhus of Epirus fought Macedon with a vengeance, on behalf of the Greek cities in question. If you can show me how I should not have particular cities in this faction, or how the faction is improperly named, I will change it.
However, why in the world would you tell me to rename the Aetolian League to Greek and not, for instance, Macedon?
Keep in mind that we cannot currently add factions, we must make do with what we have.
Yes, this will come. However, it makes no sense to do the map at least until we have all of the new provinces we will be making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Edit: removed section to avoid confusion
Give me specific edits, and I will make them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
You may not like the outcome here. Population growth is still too high in my opinion. Cities should not be growing at 10% a year (5% every 6 months) in a representation of the Classical world. Growth is too quick, population needs to be reduced more. We may consider decreasing unit costs proportionately across the board to allow for larger armies, but population will continue to be a limiting factor. One faction should not be able to conquer most of the Mediterranean in 20 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
The problem is the effects that will have on the AI, which will probably empty its cities of people if unit costs are cheap. Thus we face a delicate balancing act.
See point 2) above. We will be adding a great many new provinces, but we will not be copying them from another mod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
I am more concerned about the Latin spelling, not English. Find me its Latin name and I will do so, though someone else doing the graphics end will have to play with the map to make it look right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Please show me a map that supports giving Tribus Sarmatae to the rebels, and I will do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
I do not think Mauretania should go to Carthage. While Carthage did have control over some of the coastline to the northwest of Tingi, she did not have control over the majority of the province. If you think that is enough, I can do so, but I will not be giving Numidia to the Numidians regardless of name. It is illogical to give a province to a faction simply because they share a similar name, I prefer to do what is historical, and as the Carthaginians had subjugated the numidian tribes it would make intuitive sense that they should own Numidia. In any event, every map I see of 270 BC has Carthage controlling almost the entire area of RTW's Numidia. There is no reason to give it away. At the time in question Numidia did not exist as an independent state.
Also, for what reason should I give Dimmdi to the rebels?
If we are renaming cities, we'll be inserting historical ones with Latin names in their place. I agree the silly stuff has to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Please explain why you feel the unit speed is too slow. Be specific!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
This is the very first build of the mod, with our very first tweaks. There was never any question that unit stats would be reworked after the release of this build. In fact, we will probably still be tweaking unit stats and battle settings months from now. If you wish your feedback to be valuable to our effort, please rephrase it in terms of end results. I see a bit of it here - you think combat needs to last longer, and hoplites need to act better against cavalry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
However, you need to explain this in more detail. Why, specifically, do you think combat is off? What, specifically is off with the length of combat - do units die too fast? Break too quickly? Does the movement speed put them into engagements too quickly? What, specifically, is wrong with how the hoplites act against cavalry?
Attack factors have been increased, defense decreased. They should be more lethal. Much more lethal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
I appreciate the suggestion, but for a number of reasons that go beyond the scope of this reply editting the HPs to do that is a bad idea. What, specifically, do you see wrong with the battles at the moment (kill rate, morale breaking, or what) and how would you like it to look once we are done editting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
Don't worry, we will make adjustments on the back end to make it happen; Tell us what your objective is and leave the details of how to get there to us ;)
Don't worry, I merely adjusted movement rates across the board to get a base reference point. Once we have acceptable movement for grassland, for instance, I will adjust the others accordingly to be more accurate. For now, let's worry about the base movement on normal terrain, and get that just right as a calibration point. We can fine tune the rest later, though your suggestions on upping the movement cost on rough terrain and swamp are appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
Unit changes will come in a later build, based on what each faction's coordinator has found to be historically accurate. These units will be dealt with on a faction by faction basis and some may be taken out of the game completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
There have been and will continue to be discussions about specific factions, where these units will be discussed. I am sure they will take your suggestions into account there.
What, specifically, is wrong with this unit, and what in historical literature are you referencing to say this - what do you want the end result to be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
Province changes will definitely happen in the near future. Rest assured that these and many more will come.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
Aside from the name, can you show me a map or a historical source that indications "Numidia" should go to the numidian tribes, who were subjugated by Carthage during this time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
I do not believe this is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
"mega fleets" are not a problem. "mega fleets" are historical. I am in favor of lowering build times for ships across the board. They should be quick to build and readily available. Connolly states that both Carthage and Rome, at least, mass produced entire fleets. Rome built a several hundred ship fleet in one month. Mega fleets should stay.Quote:
Originally Posted by hormiga
Ships need to be redesigned, but there will be bigger and better ships coming. The basic bireme and trireme were small ships compared to some of the huge galleys that fought in naval battles in the classical period. If we can find the information at least one type of smaller, faster ship will be added, since some "factions" used them.
On the AI changes, see 2) above. I have read Spartan's work and I appreciate what he has accomplished, but we as a mod team are happy to test our own changes and tweaks so that we can produce historical results based on the research we have done.
Amyar is mistaken, I can do this with hidden resources. I was looking for a different solution, based on requirements. In any event units will be restricted, just as they were in MedMod for MTW. If I am not mistaken some of the members of EB contributed to the development of MedMod, so you will see similarities in design philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by hormiga
Thank you, lots of valuable feedback here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Juice
From my understanding, missle units were devastating in the classical period. Do you think they are too lethal? We will be going over all the units and tweaking them, so we will take this into consideration, especially the siege changes.
Pay attention to how the units fight at the moment. In the next build we will be trying something drastically different to affect combat. So keep your impressions fresh in mind as you play, so the differences will be clear.
Also, for battle testing, we may want to set up some basic custom battles to be used as test beds. Something to consider.
IMHO, if we are going to replace the Greek Cities faction with the Aetolian League then we should use the term Aetolian League to denote navies, cities, etc. The terms Ptolemy and Seleucid refer to a dynasty - the term Aetolian refers to a geographical region, not a political power. If we could add factions and make Rhodes, Sparta, Aetolia, etc. separate factions but strong allies at the outset of the game (much like the Roman factions) then it would make sense to use the term Aetolian when referring to the League (like Polybius does). Since we can't do this and have to use the Aetolian League as a vague concept bonding all of the Greek cities into a playable faction, then let's use "Aetolian League" consistently as a descriptive.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
The problem that was encountered with "megafleets" (ex: Greeks owning 3 citites but having 6 full stack fleets) is that the AI bankrupts its self by pumping out huge fleets. For whatever reason many AI factions tend go heavy navy (this seems to be hard coded) regardless of the situation on land. This can really castrate the AI (greeks, macedonia, carthage esp.) since the AI doesnt use its fleets very effectively anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
Spartan basically achieved a way to focus the AI on land battles (although it still does just fine at sea). Naval combat still needs alot of work... but I think this is a vast improvement over vanilla RTW.
Im not trying to offend or suggest that you cant test your ideas as well as other modders.... just wanted to point out that many people have addressed various game balance issues that you guys are just starting to address. While you may not agree with how they did it, you should at least pay heed, all the people I mentioned are just as determined to make the game more "real" as you are.
Thank you for the explanation - I originally misread what Dead Moroz was saying in this section. Please forgive my lack of reading comprehension. I will make these changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by chemchok
Update on the work list:
-campaign map/province/city changes:
khelvan
Oleander Ardens
Dead Moroz
...
...
-faction name changes/new faction implementation:
Silver Rusher
...
...
...
-unit changes/new unit implementation/3d and 2d graphics:
I've taken the liberty of subdividing the team in faction groups, according to your interests.
Please PM me if you don't agree with your assignement.
Gauls and Britons:
Vercingetorix
PSYCHO V
reconspy
Germanics:
Stefan the Berserker
...
...
Iberians:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
Dacians and Thracians:
TigerVX
Dead Moroz
The samnite
...
Scythians/Sarmatians/Parthians:
Dead Moroz
...
...
Other factions (PM me to coordinate):
...
...
...
...
...
...
-battle system changes:
Steppe Merc
Aymar de Bois Mauri
...
...
-naval battle changes:
khelvan
Colovion
...
...
-economic/population model changes:
khelvan
Oleander Ardens
...
...
-Coordination of the EB Historical thread:
Teutonic Knight
Aymar de Bois Mauri
...
...
-Faction and unit Descriptions:
Gauls and Britons:
PSYCHO V
Ranika
Germanics:
Stefan the Berserker
SaFe
...
Iberians:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
Aetolian League (former Greek Cities):
chemchok
...
Dacians and Thracians:
Stormy
...
Scythians/Sarmatians/Parthians:
Steppe Merc
...
Other factions (PM me to coordinate):
Stormy
chemchok
Ranika
Steppe Merc
ick_of_pick
...
...
...
-Gameplay testing and debugging:
Colovion
Ranika
Steppe Merc
Monk
Stormy
chemchok
PSYCHO V
Hagbard la Suede
Salazar
Mr. Juice
Dead Moroz
Post me if you have any doubts about specific assignements within the same work related area
Updated 20:53 - 10/21/04
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not personally offended. This may not apply to you, but it seems that people do not understand that RTR and EB are completely different mods, with different design philosophies, and are not in competition (at least I believe that as a whole we in EB do not feel competitive). So I've been trying to get that point across as much as possible. I've seen your name pop up in the RTR threads pointing them to EB, and here pointing us to RTR, and I just wanted to make it clear that our mods will never be one in the same, and we will continue to move in different directions. Though I, for one, certainly appreciate the attempt to help us both out.Quote:
Originally Posted by hormiga
With respect to the fleet build time, I was still a part of RTR when that was implemented and I know for a fact it was not due to the AI overbuilding ships (at least not at the time). If Spartan has made AI changes which seem to counterbalance this overbuilding I can't recall seeing it, so if you can point me to a post which states this I would love to read it. As I recall his work had to do with the two AI parameters set for each faction, which was great work, but I recall nothing about how the AI weighs building units, especially naval units.
In any event I am of the mind that any gameplay problem can be attacked in different ways, and even though one solution may seem like a good one if it puts historical accuracy aside for the sake of gameplay, I am inclined to look for other solutions to the problem. It may be tough to do so, for instance in the case of simply upping build times for ships, but to me that is a real problem because ships were quick and easy to build in the Classical world, and I would prefer to test just about anything else rather than an ahistorical solution to the problem.
Cheers,
-khel
You're sure? I'm not... :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by hormiga
Only a little. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
No problem. The things you've mentioned are, for the most part, planned. I want those changes too. And sooner rather than later. But we're still in a very early stage.
I like your methodology of testing. Good way to keep details fresh. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Juice
You haven't notice any particular change in different terrain? That is strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Juice
Yes, true. Contrary to what khelvan thinks, I think the infantry (even heavy) suffers a bit more than it should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Juice
I don't quite agree. We can circunvet the problem without increasing some in-balances already present with siege equipement (atomic warhead onagers).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Juice
I can tell you one thing for sure. I find that decreasing the rate of attack is a bad solution to the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Juice
Then it is more a problem of siege equipment resistance to arrow fire and alike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Explained like that, I'm inclined to agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by chemchok
I believe that khelvan changed movement speeds to 0.8 across the board with the intent of finetuning different terrains later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
My apologies, when I was talking about siege equipment I was referring to the rams and towers I had built on site, as I have yet to make an onager in my Macedon campaign. With the slow rate of advancement to the walls, my rams were lost, and I wouldn't doubt that my towers barely made it. Also, they only had one unit of archers. In vanilla R:TW I would have lost one ram to these defences tops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
And yes, onagers are rediculous in R:TW. ~;)
I believe that, in average, they were reduced by the factor 0.8. I might be wrong though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Juice
Ok, now I see. Yes, khelvan already had the intention of increasing the resistance of rams and towers. He just didn't do it for this test version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Juice
LOL :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Juice
There are differences in terrain modifiers. I simply reduced the vanilla modifiers by 80% across the board. Thus units should be slower in different terrain. I do not, however, agree with the weight that CA put on different terrain and I feel it needs to be slower in some instances, and perhaps higher in others. This will come when we have a base for appropriate movement speed in the open (right now the standard terrain to fight on is grass).
when will be a released ???
Hello, Deadrunner!!! ~:wave: What have you been up to?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadRunner
Estás ansioso? HE!HE!HE! :grin:
Ainda estamos na versão Alpha 0.1, portanto ainda vai demorar um bocado. Estamos a fazer as coisas passo a passo, para ter a certeza absoluta de que o jogo terá, não só uma grande fidelidade histórica em termos de unidades e culturas, mas também que será o mais realista possível. Coisa que a versão sem MOD não é...
Se quiseres podes testar a versão Alpha 0.1. Entras no grupo EB como beta-tester. Manda-me um PM e eu indico-te como. Mas esta ainda só tem stats diferentes. Não tem unidades novas. Ainda as estamos a fazer.
Se não quiseres, enquanto não sai a V1.0, vai tomando atenção ao thread. ~:wave:
Reconspy:
Been playing an few battles with your Arverni. Geez they look great. Be good if we can implement a sort of phalanx option for them, with a long sword as a secondary (non-phalanx) weapon. Not sure who has the know-how to do that?
* Could we make the spear a little longer?
Vercingetrix:
* Do you know how to implement this dual function for the Arverni so when not in a sort of phalanx formation, they fight with longsword?
* Noticed your sword for the Arverni. Is it possible to model on the sword and scabbard on units?
* Is it possible to model it so that for example, when in phalanx, the model shows a sword in the scabbard but when 'not' (ie sword in hand) the scabbard is empty?
This would add a heap to authenticity and eye candy!!
Aymar de Bois Mauri:
Doing a great job. Sent you a PM
I'm going to intrude in your discussion... :embarassed: ...but, in the RTW engine itself, regarding calculations, there are only three kind of spear-type weapons:Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
-Spear
-Short Pike
-Long Pike
If it is possible to alter only the graphics for the spear and not their beahaviour, it might be possible, but I don't think so.
Regarding the phalanx option, as I've said in a previous post answering that same question :wink: , if the Averni Arjos use the hoplite unit animation, they will behave like a phalanx, including the draw of swords for closer melee. But, IIRC, this means two things:
1) Use the hoplite model to base the Averni Arjos on, requiring the remodeling of that same model.
2) Extracting the animation data of that hoplite model and that is something that Vercingetorix is still working on his CAS import-export plug-inn.
Got it. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
Hmmm, the hoplite animation could be a work-around but it would be better if we could have two distinct options. Reason being that in RTW the Hoplites / phalanx guys use their swords when involved in very close / in your face combat... as would of happened in real life.
The prob is that the Celtic long sword was not used in this way. They needed room to swing it so the troops would have to completely break out of close formation and charge with sword in hand. So if somehow we could enable the unit to wield a spear in 'phalanx' but sword otherwise, it would be preferred.
Maybe we could link it to the hold button. When on 'hold position', the unit thrusts with spear, otherwise they use the long sword. Or visa versa with a 'Draw Swords' button. Hmm?
my2bob
@PSYCHO V:
I am sure that it can be done, and making the spear longer would be no problem. And yes, Vercingetorix is doing the finishing touches on the Arverni Arjos now, so you should ask him. The "sword back in the scabbard" look when they are using spears I think is probably impossible.
The sword and sheath are seperate models but I don't think it is possible to have the sword in scabbard when not using it otherwise it would be some eye candy! Ok I wasn't able to finish up the Averni Arjos but quickly made the gallic warband.
http://img24.exs.cx/img24/2894/gallic_warband.th.jpg
Not sure if that's what you wanted with the pants? I didn't texture them but I tried to make them like this pic: https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...merc/celt1.jpg
They now have javelins to throw, I wasn't sure if I should add a sword or just leave them with spears so I left them with their usual spears for melee combat. They're still light infantry, do you think swords are too much? I would personaly rather see them keep the spears but not my call. Gave them a torc as well, did I miss anything?
edit I would be surprised if you have any problems implementing any old unit in a phalanx. As far as I know the phalanx units use the same universal unit skeleton. I haven't really spent any time changing units in this way just the graphical changes...I may be mistaken.
http://home.earthlink.net/~axel44/gallic_warband.zip
Hi there guys! im quite new to the editing scene for RTW, (ive always edited ofp) lol anyway i was just thinking with that cool screen of the gauls you were edititing, why dont you consider editing the saturation levels a little of the clothes they are wearing (or the er textures of the clothes) and likewise for the shield (adding some dirt and scratches etc) that could make the unit look more kinda real - that said of course CA has a lot of units that look too bright or colourful in my opinion.
Anyway Vercingtorix i think the work your doing is great, ive only been here for a week or so, but i can already appreciate the great work ur doing.
Brilliant stuff Verci !!
Torc Torc Torc !! :charge: :charge: :charge:
Re the pants: I think the boots are too high imho. Ok for the more elite units like Arverni etc that could afford special boots but for the grunts I think it best to keep the pants gathered low at the ankles with shoes.
Re the weapons: Nice with the throwing spears. I do think the sword the preferred secondary weapon. This will reflect historically how the majority fought, and the Warband is a generic majority unit. The peasants are your ‘too poor to have sword’ spear unit, whilst the Arverni, Helvetii and Bodubatae etc are your spear defence units. If we can get those later ‘elite’ units that dual role thing between thrusting spears and swords, the Warband throwing spears and swords ability will also add a bit of variety. My2bob
Waiting eagerly to begin skinning!!
nice stuff Vercingetorix - but how are they going to stay warm with no shirt on in the chilly north?
Ok, let's make our own! :charge: I think it's good idea to add some new regions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
I miss Corsica. Don't understand why it's united with Sardinia.
Caledonia will be good too imho.
Not sure about Raetia. I would easily agree to forget about it.
Also I'm thinking about renaming "Bosphorus" to "Tavria" (need proper Latin spelling), and making new (historically accurate) Bosporus (not Bosphorus - it's strait near Istanbul) on both coasts of Kerch strait.
You got me wrong! I just pointed out that name "Bylazora" (original CA's) may be Slavic and anachronistic for that period. I already found better name for town in this region - Serdica (from map in Osprey's book about Thracians).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
That's a BIG MISTAKE! They were not all Greeks. There was just some number of Greek "immigrants" living in all these countries. And there were a lot of "metises". But the backbone of populations were not Greeks. You just confused culture with ethnicity.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
Because inhabitants of these unions (Aetolian and Achaen Leagues) were pure Greeks in comparison with "Greeks" from successors' states.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
I noticed yesterday that you just changed the ownership of region without editing garrisons in town. Now there are some faction specific units in rebel regions which rebels not supposed to have. For example, falxsmen in Campus Getae or macedonian cavalry in Syracuse. They have silly "Peasant" icon and I'm afraid (not tested yet) there will be problems with textures in battle (=>CTD?).Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
Hmmm... My common growth % is just 0.5-2 per turn. Even with low taxes in some cities. I wish to have that 10% per year. Only certain towns (like Patavium, Mediolanum or some Greek cities) have something like 5-7%.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
For me farming income is not population growth but money. Reducing it can make game just unplayable. Do what you want, but I will not never ever spoil my farms! :clown:
Do not see the problem here.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
Just answered to Aymar above: "Let's make our own new provinces!"Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
This town have Greek origins and so the name is Greek. I think the "Olvia" will be right (I'll try to check).
Believe me as a specialist (have diploma) on Scythians. ~:) It will be 100% historically accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
1. About Mauretania. The same thing are for Lepcis Magna and Lybia. Carthaginians and Ptolemies controlled just coastal lines of these regions. But according to realities of RTW we give them full provinces. The same must be with Mauretania. It's just ingame convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
2. About Numidia. According to historial accuracy there must be no Numidia in start. But since we decide to have this faction we must give Numidia to it. Giving Mauretania and Dimmidi to Numidia will just increase inaccuracy. Mauretania was separate kingdom. Dimidi will make Numidia inaccurately big.
My suggestion: give Numidia just one region - Numidia. And if it possible make it protectorate of Carthage.
Ok, I'll make detailed description.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
In my game ships keep fighting like they used to do it in original version. No any lethality noticed.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
Lovely Torc Verci!
https://usera.imagecave.com/PSYCHO/EBGallicWarband.jpg
Well, what do you guys think of the Northern Warband so far?
The Southern Warband is basically the same but with a different colouring / shield emblem, a Briton head and a shorter version of recons cloak.
I started to edit geographical map yesterday. That's what I made now:
http://www.ruslan-com.ru/zotov/eb/0051.jpg
http://www.ruslan-com.ru/zotov/eb/0050.jpg
I made proper town in Scythia and moved east the border of this region (now I think it must be moved even easter to cut off Meotis from Crimea).
New fords added and some moved to make communication between regions easier. In original RTW Scythia had no access to Sarmatia - it was wrong.
I removed one ford from Volga and left just one distant to make it harder to cross this big river.
Now I'm planning to adjust proportions of steppes and forests in Eastern Europe.
Want to move wheat from Crimea to Scythia. Planning to add silk to Sakae (there was one of minor ways of Great Silk Road) but not completely sure about it.
Aren't they too naked for North? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Update on the work list:
-campaign map/province/city changes:
khelvan
Oleander Ardens
Dead Moroz
...
...
-faction name changes/new faction implementation:
Silver Rusher
...
...
...
-unit changes/new unit implementation/3d and 2d graphics:
I've taken the liberty of subdividing the team in faction groups, according to your interests.
Please PM me if you don't agree with your assignement.
Gauls and Britons:
Vercingetorix
PSYCHO V
reconspy
Germanics:
Stefan the Berserker
SaFe
...
Iberians:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
Dacians and Thracians:
TigerVX
Dead Moroz
The samnite
...
Scythians/Sarmatians/Parthians:
Dead Moroz
...
...
Other factions (PM me to coordinate):
...
...
...
...
...
...
-battle system changes:
Steppe Merc
Aymar de Bois Mauri
...
...
-naval battle changes:
khelvan
Colovion
...
...
-economic/population model changes:
khelvan
Oleander Ardens
...
...
-Coordination of the EB Historical thread:
Teutonic Knight
Aymar de Bois Mauri
...
...
-Faction and unit Descriptions:
Gauls and Britons:
PSYCHO V
Ranika
Germanics:
Stefan the Berserker
SaFe
...
Iberians:
Aymar de Bois Mauri
Aetolian League (former Greek Cities):
chemchok
...
Dacians and Thracians:
Stormy
...
Scythians/Sarmatians/Parthians:
Steppe Merc
...
Other factions (PM me to coordinate):
Stormy
chemchok
Ranika
Steppe Merc
ick_of_pick
...
...
...
-Gameplay testing and debugging:
Colovion
Ranika
Steppe Merc
Monk
Stormy
chemchok
PSYCHO V
Hagbard la Suede
Salazar
Mr. Juice
Dead Moroz
Sol Invictus
Post me if you have any doubts about specific assignements within the same work related area
Updated 01:00 - 10/23/04
I don't know how to circunvent that problem and i doubt there is an easy solution...Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
I know that is not possible. The fighting behaviour is hard-coded.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
https://usera.imagecave.com/PSYCHO/E...cWarbandII.jpg
Playing with shield designs
I agree. Ca depicted them all naked. In the Historical pictures that's rather rare except, of course, for the Gaesatae.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
I think the best way to start planning the implementation of a new map is for you to discuss things with the guys in the Campaign Map group : khelvan and Oleander Ardens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
OK. Sorry. I've misunderstood what you wrote. Good research in finding that name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
So, what's the current state of the map? Oleander wrote me that they're preparing new map starting 300BC. Don't hide it! Show to us! ~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
I've discussed with khelvan about this exact same problem earlier, although not specifically about provinces. More about Carthaginian preponderance in the region and it's relation with Numidians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
The only real solution for the problem will happen only when we start adding provinces to the game. Larger areas can then be sub-divided in Historical areas of influence, allowing both a powerfull Carthage (centered on naval power) and a feasible, sustainable Numidia (centered on inland power).
They do look good, but there are too many barechested Gallic units in the game, don't you agree?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Both shields look good, but I ask again: Aren't there too many barechested Gallic units?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHO V
Sorry for being a nag about it... :wink:
Hey, man! PM the guy! :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
I haven't seen the map yet... :no:
Err, that is news to me. Oleander, please drop me a line with what you are working on. Is this the direction we have decided to go in for EB? If that is what you guys have decided, it would have been nice to know before I spent days learning and editing the current campaign structure.
About the Celts, shouldn't all of them except for mabye the slingers, Gaestae and chariot drivers have shirts? From what I understand, only the light infantry and the Gaestae went shirtless...
Hi guys, I'm working on the faction description now and already have Thracians done. I will give it to Khelvan in a bit.
For the good people working on Thracian models and skins
Good information and photos about the Thracian army
~:eek: oh my, All of these units is looking fantastic!!
Excellent work on the geographical aspect Dead Moroz. ~:cheers:
Hey, Stormy!!! Great info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormy
But you can post this and pictures at the EB thread at the Colosseum. That thread is the one to post general Historical info. Unit pics and unit info should be posted here.
:duel: I will do it now Aymar.
~:) This mod is looking great all. Fantastic ideas and great workers ~:grouphug:
Well, if you can come up with, together with chemchok, a better way to represent these Greek peoples, I will be happy to implement it. Please collaborate with him, and assuming the rest of the group accepts it I am all for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Yes, I will have to go back through the units, though I was waiting until we had a unit list that we would be adding/removing from the factions. You get the same peasant icon when you create a new unit and use it in game, I am not quite sure what is the cause of it; it also appears when you add a faction unit to a mercenary hiring point. I suspect that each faction has its own unit cards for each unit, and if a faction that does not normally have that type of unit (rebels, in your example) is given it, the card doesn't show properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
That is merely a guess, though. The people who have been working on getting new units into the game can probably address that better than I.
I can easily, through building the farm upgrades, health buildings, and the temples of growth get 10% a year in all but the most barren of provinces. If your concern is not population growth but income level, do not worry so much. The reason why the game is somewhat difficult at the beginning right now is because we have not adjusted unit costs at the moment, and I did not reduce starting garrisons. We will play with that, but you will notice if you play a campaign through that the mid to end game is still very easy, as you have a ton of denari pouring in, especially if you have coastal provinces. Trade is the best way to make denari in the game at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
If the farm level is too low to stay profitable, we can adjust the income levels in many different ways. I think, however, that you will find that the game is still rather easy if you just play through it a bit longer.
On the second note, the reason why reducing population growth but keeping the income level at a relatively high amount (due to trade being a primary source of income) can be a problem for an AI is that the AI may continue to build units at the same rate based on available income. If it builds units too fast it might even reduce its cities to very small populations.
I agree, but I do not currently have the knowledge to do this. Do you know how to do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Ok I will take your word for it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
On naming conventions - we should decide if we are going to use Latin names for everything or try to come up with names based on the origin of the town itself. We need to come to some sort of consensus on this before we start adding new provinces.
I do not believe that it is possible to set up protectorates at this time. I believe that part of the code is not exposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Let's concentrate on gaining the skills necessary to create new provinces so we can avoid this issue before we release our first version. We can also avoid other sticky situations such as that with Ptolemaic Egypt on the coast near Halicarnassus and the situation of the Greek cities.
Vercingetrix and I are working on the Warband and Bodubatae. If we can get the Northern Warband sorted (ie with throwing spear and sword), then the Southern will soon follow. Being the same sort but with a Briton head and a shorter version of your great Arverni cloak.Quote:
Originally Posted by reconspy
Did you want to have a go at the Standard Bearer and Captain units?
I just thought I'd give a little feedback on the mod testing.
1) I'm playing as Germany and have noticed a few strange things:
a) the Senate have already conquered Osca and Narbo Martius and it's only been about 20 turns. I'd never seen SPQR take anything - let alone two provinces that quickly. Perhaps it's because they start with other provinces plus money to start them off. Hopefully they aren't overpowering early in the game.
b) the German Spear/Phalanx unit only fights with their spear. They don't have any secondary weapon. This could be ok - but those spears are hugely long and when they get close in to fight hand to hand the guy looks like he's punching the enemy soldier while holding his spear vertical...
2) The movement speed is decent and I am pretty sure that I'll be happy with it. I'm guessing we're planning on changing the speeds for various terrains though. Right now besides a few changes we're at .8 across the board. I see there being better ways:
here's an example of how you can change the file 'descr_battle_map_movement_modifiers.txt':
Any input into changing this at all would be welcome - this is just a sugestion... I mean they can be defined down many many decimals....Quote:
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
climate default
grass_short 0.9
grass_long 0.8
sand 0.8
rock 0.8
forest_dense 0.6
scrub_dense 0.8
swamp 0.6
mud 0.8
mud_road 0.9
stone_road 0.9
water 0.5
ice 0.4
snow 0.6
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
The main thing I am looking for besides obvious bugs is how Carthage fares against Rome through the game.
Another Bit of Modding Feedback:
Carthage plays great with the new Ships and the extra Denarii, if you consequently hunt down the Roman Ships and Blockade their Ports + pumping out new Ships en Masse you can Really kick ass against Romans. Also War mostly breaks out from me conquering Sicily meating a Roman Army which wants Syracuse or Messana, just like it should be ~:)
As far as i saw the Ai also does pretty well with Carthage and gives the Romans a hard Time in at least the Western Mediterranian Sea.
Romans also Expand notably slower in the Beginning though in a Short Julii Game i noticed you have too much Troops in the Beginning and have to Conquer new Land as fast as Possible. In my Games before EB i never wanted to Conquer as fast as the Senate ordered me, now it's the other Way round, also not unhistorically.
A few Things which could imho be done:
Put Gades one step lower and Carthago nova one higher + give CN a Port.
Iberia was one of the most Important Colonies of Carthage and would surely have had at least one Port historically.
Same counts for Lilybaeum, Sicily was also very important, so maybe also give it a Port.
Give the Carthies less Ships. With the Amount of Ships they have at the Moment the Romans havent even a chance to build a Fleet. Also with the newe Ports Carthage could build even more Ships and would be even more Powerful, so, mayby make 8 or so out of the twelve ships.
Fazit: Plays great :bow: :bow: :bow:
The great Modders here surely deserve it
i am drawling of waiting for a released already ~D
Aymar do you will put the Lusitanos Heros ???
I sady that this coulnd,t be dividied in eras will be nice to play with iberian when they almost kick Roman out of Iberia ~;) ,of course was a temporary victory
From what I've seen as the Parthians, I have a bit of trouble keeping aliances other than that of Armenia (Parthian's historical protectorate). Has any one else found that historical allies are easier to keep? I always end up figthing the Selcuids and the Ptolemiec Empire. I wish the Scythians would ally with me, but they never will. However, without Campus Sartae, things are easier since that place sucked up a whole lot of money.
Also, can the capital of the Parthians (I forget the name), start with the Governers Palace? Since it's the capital, it's a bit silly to have another city have more people in it.
I think that the idealism of a 'barbarian horde' should be better simulated, although it's not my department. Barbarian units should be far worse than other units of other factions, however they have huge numbers. So say, the gaul faction for example (on large units) starts with a total of about 50,000 men in and out of their cities, whereas others barely scrape a few thousand. This could have problems with loyalty being unbalanced, but really, who isn't scared when a huge barbarian horde comes into your civilised city and occupies it, threatening to brutally murder anybody getting in it's way?
Wait, what are we using for the starting time period, 270 or 300 BC? That's going to make a huge difference in the starting positions of factions. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri
I totally agree. This should be discussed by all members as soon as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan