Suggestions for v0.81

I don't get why Sauromatae generals speak Celtic; the sarmatians were an Iranian people. Pahlava and Qarthadastim generals speak Greek, too; they had their own languages. What gives? :juggle2:

Plus, the Hetairoi were supposedly more elite than the Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi; yet the Kataphraktoi can beat up on Hetairoi due to much higher defense. Since Hetairoi were so awesome, shouldn't they be better? they were THE BEST cavalry in their heyday. Hetairoi should :whip: the Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi

And this is what grivpanvar on gaesatae looks like :wall:
Gaesatae lack armor (though they have shields) but their lack of a good group should make them easy pickings. eqvites romani and crap like that can still turn and pwn them, but the best cavalry in the game should nearly run them overlike grass. plus, the kontos is no longer or more powerful than a xiston; kontos is, literally, "barge-pole" in Greek. OMG :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeeek2

I don't get why Sauromatae generals speak Celtic; the sarmatians were an Iranian people. Pahlava and Qarthadastim generals speak Greek, too; they had their own languages. What gives? :juggle2:

Plus, the Hetairoi were supposedly more elite than the Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi; yet the Kataphraktoi can beat up on Hetairoi due to much higher defense. Since Hetairoi were so awesome, shouldn't they be better? they were THE BEST cavalry in their heyday. Hetairoi should :whip: the Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi

And this is what grivpanvar on gaesatae looks like :wall:
Gaesatae lack armor (though they have shields) but their lack of a good group should make them easy pickings. eqvites romani and crap like that can still turn and pwn them, but the best cavalry in the game should nearly run them overlike grass. plus, the kontos is no longer or more powerful than a xiston; kontos is, literally, "barge-pole" in Greek. OMG :furious3:

---

Only Greek, Latin, & Celtic voicemods have been finished. For all of the other languages placeholders are being used. The team thought it was better to have an incorrect ancient language for the unfinished guys, rather an an odd sounding incorrect modern language (English) as a placeholder.

...

Gaesatae are drugged up 'naked fanatics'. What's wrong with them...?

...

In my 2 campaigns played so far in 0.81a, the Casse AI after conquering all of Britain and the northern province of Ireland stays on the border with a full stack and just freezes there for many many years, is this because the AI thinks the garrison in there is too strong? There are some Milnaht but still this is not normal...

I was reading this article by General Sun at TWC and it seems to be he has a point in the idea that recruiting in a newly conquered region should drive unhappiness up, not down. Can this be implemented, maybe via scripts?

Having small stone walls for the Celtic factions would help greatly with their defence. I keep getting my cities with a small armies crushed quickly by the Romans and the Greek factions.

I've found the massive slinger armies too... I found out that having really heavy infantry in the front helps a lot... I usually defeat them by never leting them hanging on my flanks... With the Romani after you get polybian princeps it's easy to counter such armies... Also, you'll need some good cav...

Cheers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pawl ap Hywel

Having small stone walls for the Celtic factions would help greatly with their defence. I keep getting my cities with a small armies crushed quickly by the Romans and the Greek factions.

---

There are plans for a new reworked stonewall for the gauls. The current stone wall isn't right for the celts (giant, cut stone, pollished walls).

The Goidilic Daisbard infantry would look good as the new Eleutheroi general. I think he would look equally good in the east, Africa, Arabia, Iberia and the Steppes.
Also the unit would make an excellent new Sabaean family member. Just change the cloak to a more uniform color (instead of the celtic checkered one) and you have an excellent new generic general model.

What if you included historical battles for certain factions in the year they took place and have different effects based on who wins and loses (like RTR is doin in their next release)?

I don't know that we know how to do that - having historical battles affect a campaign.

I think he means creating battle in campaigne (by script).
I dupe we will do that, EB is more about representing history and not recreating it ( this wouldnt be very interesting game but a great movie ).

If you are talking about spawning things like Hannibal's army, than EB has decided against that. From 272BC onward, history is entirely different. (It is very hard to recreate the First Punic War in the same way that it happened historically. And if it didn't happen the way it did historically, there would be no Hannibal.)

OK, I got a few ideas:

1) Acquiring technology.

As part of diplomacy, you can offer to give another faction some unique technology of yours, or ask them to teach you one of theirs. E.g. Roma teaches Paved Roads Aedui in exchange for Taverns.

You could use this if you're some obsessed gotta-catch-'em-all guy, but I was thinking more: get the Barbarians to fill your coffers and do your road-building for you, after which you can hire some armies on the money you make and charge into Gaul, killing them anyway. Or buy Theatres from the Greeks to keep your people happy (I'm still talking about Roma here). Obviously, some factions would be very unwilling to sell some technologies (e.g. only an idiot would sell Large Stone Walls for $100, and if you're non-Roman, you'd have to offer something special to get them to teach you the technology). However, it might be quite sensible to teach people large ports or markets in exchange for a tribute, because:

a) The tribute would fill up your coffers
b) It would drain theirs
c) It would improve trade for both of you - good if they're your Allies, and it gives you extra income anyway
d) It means you can invade a better city (see note about roads, above)

Surely this sort of thing happened in history, and if implemented, the possibilities would be endless...

2) Population resettlement.

You will have the option of "recruiting" normal civilians fom your cities. They can be recruited in groups of thousand, and each thousand people takes 2-4 turns (your choice) to recruit (because they have to get ready, get belongings etc.). Once they're all ready, you can move them out of the city, where you'll get a big civilian "army". You can then move them to a different city, and again let them settle in. Again, 2-4 turns per 1000 to buy/build a new house etc. This would both slow/stop squalor in huge cities, and help tiny villages that take 20 years to advance, grow.

In order to stop this from becoming some super-own-everything-God-mode feature, the following drawbacks should be included:

a) Both the city that the citizens leave and the one they arrive in will suffer a short-term unrest boost, decreasing happiness (as the people are forced from their homes).

b) The original city will only lose its population when the citizens physically leave the city; while they are still getting ready, or sitting inside ready and waiting to move, they'll just be sitting there, creating squalor and unrest. Similarly, only when they become fully assimilated into the new city will its population increase; whilst assimilating, they will increase unrest. The unrest will last a few years after they leave/settle in.

c) Citizens will have various effects on the world around them:

i) The citizens will gradually become more and more irritated, the more time passes from when they were evicted to when they settle in. If their anger reaches a certain point, they/the city they're in will rebel and become a large Eleutheroi army, or a city with a large Eleutheroi garrisson (or both, if there are enough citizens and the rebelling city's garrisson spills over). These armies may or may not be aggressive, up to you guys, really.

ii) Citizens devastate the landscape and slow trade, even in their own regions (like enemy armies).

iii) If citizens are moved from a frontier region, their unhappiness at moving out may be decreased. If there are enough hostile armies near the settlement they move out of - i.e. the threat of a siege, and consequently their deaths, is high - they may, in fact leave the settlement happier than they were. Incidentally, perhaps add a few things that upset settlements' populations: sieges and the distance to the capital already exist as decreases to population happiness, but what about living on the frontier/next to the enemy (not necessarily distance) and/or the threat of a siege (possibly same thing)?

Citizens that are moved from a plague-ridden settlement will also be happy to leave (just make sure they aren't carrying the plague).

On a similar note, the more baths, temples etc. a city has, the smaller the lingering unrest will be once the citizens move in. Note, this is about happiness upon resettlement; the other two points are about happiness upon leaving. Note also that this is not the same as the assimilation period - i.e. the time it takes to add the citizens to the settlement's population (see 2) d)).

d) All cities have a cooldown period after assimilating 1 unit of citizens; the smaller the city, the larger the cooldown period. Also, very small settlements might take longer than 2 turns to assimilate 1 unit of citizens. This is because there are fewer resources and less manpower there to build new houses etc. Also, in terms of balance, it means that you can't skyrocket your town into a Huge City - indeed, dumping loads of citizens onto some random town will mean instant rebellion (and not the good, time-to-massacre-and-make-money type, because you'll get a huge Eleutheroi army too [see 2) c)]).

On a similar note, citizens take longer to get ready in small towns (because of less available supply to get them through the journey etc.), if you wanted to drain a small settlement of its population; and, as always, you can't have <400 people.

e) These groups of citizens can be interacted with by every type of character:

i) Allied

1) Another group of citizens: can merge with them, and they can split, like armies/fleets (1 unit=1000 citizens, therefore max. 20K per group).

2) Army: can merge, subduing anxiety/rebellious thoughts, and will help in battles (see 2) e) ii) 2)). Generals can either increase or decrease happiness, and increase or decrease rebellion, depending on traits.

3) Spy/Assassin: can merge, subduing anxiety and helping prevent enemy spies/assassins from succeeding with their missions. May involve killing off some citizens.

4) Diplomat: can merge, increasing happiness (by lying to them/calming them down).

ii) Enemy

1) Another group of citizens: either they fight or nothing happens, not sure (see 2) e) ii) 2)).

2) Army: can attack the citizens. I'm in several minds about this - either they automatically kill all/80%/50%/whatever of the citizens if they engage, or you get an auto-resolve only battle, or you get a normal battle, with every citizen unarmed and wielding no weapon; 1 attack, 0 charge, 1 defence and practically no morale. An auto-resolve only battle would probably be best because:

a) A normal battle would probably be quite laggy, especially with 20,000+ people!

b) 100% extermination all the time might be quite unfair as then you could get 1 Peasant (in theory) to wipe out 20,000 citizens. Even 1 unit of the most elite troop in the game would get killed eventually.

c) On the flip side, 50%/80%/whatever extermination all the time would also be unfair if you have a super-elite army which can only kill 500/1000 people (even though it would probably be able to slaughter all of them), just as 1 Peasant can.

3) Spy/Assassin: Spies obviously spy as recon for the enemy, and Assassins can kill citizens (probably in groups of 50 or 100 at a time to make it worthwhile - these assassinations spread fear and thus speed up the rebellion process).

4) Diplomat: Can try to bribe citizens to become Eleutheroi, and/or spread lies/rumours of the cruelty/military defeats/etc. of the citizens' faction, decreasing happiness. Possible option to try and convert some/all of the citizens to the Diplomat's faction...?

I've been toying with several ideas with regards to how to implement this. I first thought of a different unit/agent type, meaning that you will need a new bar to "store" citizens in (i.e. "(Fleet) Army (Construction) Agents Citizens".

However, I think it's much more feasible just to create a new Citizen unit, 1000 people per unit, as mentioned above, which goes in the Army slot. This will, first and foremost, make merging with soldiers simpler and battles will make more sense. I have several thoughts on battles involving citizens, if they are implemented into the game as a unit(see 2) e) ii) 2)):

1) Armies with Citizens can only auto-resolve battles.

2) Armies with Citizens can fight normal battles.

3) When presented with the screen at the start of a battle, an Army with Citizens can choose to either committ all its units (including the Citizens) and auto-resolve a battle; it can tick a checkbox that will "Omit Citizens from the battle", meaning they can stay behind whilst the normal soldiers fight either an auto-resolved or normal battle (thus lowering the army's size and strength but ensuring no citizens die).

If the army were to lose, what fate would befall the hiding Citizens is up to you (extermination, flight [i.e. they flee], rebellion; a combination, depending on the battle; the enemy gets to choose; whatever).

I'd say option 3 was best, as it avoids huge, laggy battles and generally just creating a Citizen unit is, in my opinion, the easiest way to add this to the game. I don't know what the limits of RTW's hardcoding are, but hopefully this will stay within its borders (if not, make Citizens 500-, 320- or whatever-strong).

Unfortunately, with regards your first idea, we cannot make any changes to the diplomacy engine, it is hardcoded.

With regards your second, much of the stuff you've written (concerning repopulation and the happiness and stuff) will not be able to be implemented properly, I don't think we have the necessary triggers in the script to check for the kind of things happening in game. We cannot creat new agent types, but certainly we can create a new unit type. However, the maximum size (on huge unit setting) is 240, in addition we have a cap on the maximum number of units avaliable, so using this precious resource is not something we want to do unless absolutely necessary.

Nice ideas, but RTW hardcodes are getting in the way.

Foot

Indeed, they are nice ideas, and you took a while to properly think them out. They would be really great, but we just can't touch the hardcode, and every one of them I see would require being able to change something that we currently cannot. Pretty much anything that involves *adding* a new box or option or a new concept that doesn't entirely exist within current game mechanics is off limits to all RTW modders. Hope this doesn't disuade you from thinking about things that are possible within the game engine, or getting into modding the game yourself even.

And what would you have to do to bypass those hardcodes? Hack into the exe or something :P? Anyway, can't you just send an email to CA or pay them 20 bucks or something to send you the C++ or whatever code version for RTW/BI/Alexander? I mean, they're focused on M2TW now right, so what do they care what we do?

Also, can you make citizens with 200 per unit then and transfer them that way?

However, if you can't move your citizens, can you make an option to exterminate/enslave the populace of a settlement you already own? This will avoid unnecessary intentional rebellion and retaking of cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

And what would you have to do to bypass those hardcodes? Hack into the exe or something :P? Anyway, can't you just send an email to CA or pay them 20 bucks or something to send you the C++ or whatever code version for RTW/BI/Alexander? I mean, they're focused on M2TW now right, so what do they care what we do?

---

This is how to get noticed by CA in the wrong way. Firstly to buy an engine is excessively expensive, secondly we don't have the expertise to do anything with it, and thirdly MTW2 has only just come out and I imagine that RTW is still selling in small numbers.

Quote:

---

Also, can you make citizens with 200 per unit then and transfer them that way?

---

As I said, we can do that, but we are short on unit space and in addition we could not do any of the other stuff you represented in your proposal connected with this idea.

Quote:

---

However, if you can't move your citizens, can you make an option to exterminate/enslave the populace of a settlement you already own? This will avoid unnecessary intentional rebellion and retaking of cities.

---

As Teleklos said, we cannot make new options.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

This is how to get noticed by CA in the wrong way.

---

What, they monitor these forums?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

to buy an engine is excessively expensive

---

But is it for sale? If so: how much does it cost, where can I buy it, and what language is it in? Also, what software do I need to edit it (successfully)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

we don't have the expertise to do anything with it

---

OK, I'm confused. I'll admit right now that I know next to nothing about programming. I know a little bit of BASIC (my most complicated program created lottery tickets :laugh4:) and as for RTW, I can only do the simple typing-words-modification - i.e. unlimited ammo, unlimited camera etc. You guys, on the other hand, have practically created a new game here - or a new expansion pack, at least. Nowhere in those text files I managed to "mod" did I see any easy TRUE/FALSE option for new factions, units, or a new map; nowhere have I seen an option in RTWV's text files to make the soldiers speak their own language, or change the main menu screen. Therefore you guys must know something that I don't.

So what exactly is it you do to create EB? How do you make the new buildings, units, factions with their own crests etc.? And therefore what precisely is stopping you from getting to the "hardcode" and adding population transfer systems, an auto-exterminate button or any other wildly different ideas?

Quote:

---

But is it for sale? If so: how much does it cost, where can I buy it, and what language is it in?

---

Well if You have spare few hundreds thousands american dolars then I think You should contact CA directly.
It's most likely writen in C++.

Quote:

---

So what exactly is it you do to create EB?

---

Well we redesigne RTW.
You can change a lot there. Actually only few percent of RTW cant be touched by us. Ofcouse there are some parts that could be changed but we dont know how to do it, reverse engineering is not an easy thing to do.
But also this few precent are most crucial and extremely difficult to create. Thats why it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to create it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

What, they monitor these forums?

---

It's not something I would like to call "monitoring", there are simply a couple of CA people who visit this forum as well. Simply put this forum is for everyone who's got something with TW series and wishes to talk about it, and this of course includes CA people. I believe that they actually use these and perhaps other forums to support the fan base - in this way that this is a sort of platform for fans (mostly modders) to get in touch with the people who wrote the game and exchange ideas/ opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

OK, I'm confused. I'll admit right now that I know next to nothing about programming. I know a little bit of BASIC (my most complicated program created lottery tickets :laugh4:) and as for RTW, I can only do the simple typing-words-modification - i.e. unlimited ammo, unlimited camera etc. You guys, on the other hand, have practically created a new game here - or a new expansion pack, at least. Nowhere in those text files I managed to "mod" did I see any easy TRUE/FALSE option for new factions, units, or a new map; nowhere have I seen an option in RTWV's text files to make the soldiers speak their own language, or change the main menu screen. Therefore you guys must know something that I don't.

---

Simply look at the amount of files that don't end with ".EXE" or ".DLL" - and look at what they are. There are sound packs that contain all the sound files used by Vanilla RTW, there are pictures that contain every faction icon used in game, there are text files that contain instructions for the engine where to find what files, or that work like a database (containing, you got that right already, all or part of the data used for a specific part of RTW - say the Stats, or the Campaign map). That's what we can edit. All those files that don't involve messing with the actual program itself. And the refore we better thank CA for putting so much of the data in plain, and relatively easy to understand, text formats, rather than keeping everything stored somewhere inside the program itself. (Which would lead to a faster RTW, btw.) Otherwise, EB would simply not have been there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

So what exactly is it you do to create EB? How do you make the new buildings, units, factions with their own crests etc.? And therefore what precisely is stopping you from getting to the "hardcode" and adding population transfer systems, an auto-exterminate button or any other wildly different ideas?

---

Well, ergo my remarks above, we edit all the files we can. Or about all of them. And we can't edit anything in the program/ hardcode itself (everything ending with ".DLL" or ".EXE") - or perhaps, some of us could do that but that would be highly illegal. (Read the user license agreement...) The program as a whole can't be edited by anyone, unless that person actually has the source code. Note that you have the executable (hence, the ".EXE"), which is altogether different from the source code, since it's basically a tiny version of the source containing a minimum of data to run properly - but containing so little data that you can't use it for editing your RTW engine. Simply: you have all the DLL's (libraries, containing pieces of code you wouldn't want to keep "copying" and "pasting" every single times, you'd rather call upon the library once in a while when you need it so your exe demands less resources.), and you've got a frame which makes everything work together the EXE, plus you've got the output ready to be assembled (the files we can edit). So, if we edit the unassembled bits of output one by one, the assembled output becomes completely different from anything Vanilla. But that's where it ends, we can't do anything about "input" (DLL's & EXE that determine where you have to click) or anything between "input" and "output" (that determine what exactly the game is going to do with your input) bar the few databases and the "lookup" files that contain data for the engine.

And breathe... Hope this clears thing up a bit.

OK, but do you create your own models/icons etc. in various programs (C, 3DSMax, whatever) or can you just edit a few text files in Notepad and hey presto get a new faction?

Edit: Oh, and two more things:

1) Why is rev-engeneering an exe any more illegal than changing a txt/xls/wav?

2) If I were to get my hands on the C code of RTW V/BI/Alex...

a) Would any of you be able to do anything with it?
b) Would editing that be illegal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

But is it for sale? If so: how much does it cost, where can I buy it, and what language is it in? Also, what software do I need to edit it (successfully)?

---

1) How much do you reckon will it cost to employ an entire company CA sized for about a year?
2) You should a) contact CA b) contact Activision (those who make the money, and they employed CA to make RTW for them) c) contact SEGA which now does about the same as the things that Activision did earlier (they took over or something like it, and they are the ones who financed M2TW.)
3) You would need a compiler (you may find some of that for free), and a tool capable of editing text files and exporting to whatever extension you want. In theory, Notepad should work. Unfortunately, just about every typing error you make will cause the game not to function properly anymore - if you're running your edited version. Luckily, you're now in the single most ideal position save for CA programmers to edit out just about all bugs which RTW still might have. ~;)
4) You may wish to know that lot's and lot's of code included with RTW probably wasn't even written by CA peopel themselves - they'd have used other programs (tools) to do the rather easy/ repetitive jobs for them. So you may want to acquire a couple of those as well. (Going to cost something, but, hey, if you are going to spend such amounts of money better do it properly, right? :grin: )
5) They, from CA, (perhaps in name of Activision) might have employed a couple of other companies to do some of the work for them, at least this was the case with some .MP3 tech stuff. You may want to contact those as well, perhaps they would either object to your purchase of the RTW source code, or they would be willing to help you out with a couple of important aspects of your very own RTW version - all in exchange for some money. But again, better to do things properly don't you think? You wouldn't want to appear in court, just because some company sued you for something you didn't know of at all in the first place, would you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

OK, but do you create your own models/icons etc. in various programs (C, 3DSMax, whatever) or can you just edit a few text files in Notepad and hey presto get a new faction?

---

Models, are as you will have noticed something completely different from factions. Just look at it this way: models they exist, pictures they do as well, but factions don't. Factions involve toying with a couple of .txt files - that's it. Faction icons means creating your own images, and you would have guessed that this is done by using a picture editing program - such as photoshop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

Edit: Oh, and two more things:

1) Why is rev-engeneering an exe any more illegal than changing a txt/xls/wav?

2) If I were to get my hands on the C code of RTW V/BI/Alex...

a) Would any of you be able to do anything with it?
b) Would editing that be illegal?

---

1) Because of what's written in the user license agreement. You can edit anything you like apart from the user license agreemtent (hey... :clown:) and the ".DLL's" and ".EXE" files. Very, very officially speaking each mod has to have a couple of lines of text in the opening screen: 1) there needs to be written that it (the mod) is not supported by CA (so that they can't be held responsible for whateve goes wrong), 2) there has to written an e-mail adress you can use to contact the creator(s) of the mod to ask for help etc.

2a) There are probably quite a few who would be, yes. I'm not one of them, but I guess that people like Vercingetorix, or LorDBula would. Better to let them respond for themselves, perhaps.
2b) Not really, especially not if you were to use it yourself only, and not to release it to public. But that all depends on what you would agree to with CA if you bought it. You could buy the license to have it and use it, but perhaps you could also buy the license to have it, use it, edit it (without damaging CA's interests in any way that may be possible...) , and redistribute it (sell it, give it away for free, lend it... whatever). Of course, depending on what type of license you want to have the price is going up as well.

OK, thanks for all your help

You're welcome.

I was thinking, shouldn't Colonys increase trade? After all, one of their main purpose of being made was to increase trade with the mother city.

I'd like to share a couple of "historicity" modifications that I made to my install:

1. It was remarked upon that Parthians charged knee-to-knee. I modified the unit spacing for grivpanvar & the other cataphracts to be 1.5 metres (like the Saka lancers). I haven't yet modified the default formation, but I will.

2. The purchase of 500 elephants from Chandragupta just isn't the same as conquering India and building a 4th level MIC. So I made standard Indian elephants available as (rare) mercs in Gandhara, Sattagydia, Sind, Baktria and Arachosia. It's nice, because now elephants are turning up in battles.

3. Paved roads for the Persian royal road. I'm considering even putting highways in.

I'm also considering giving the Parthians horse-archers some extra ammo, since they (at least sometimes) used camels in battle to replenish their stocks. This might be better as a later version of the shivatir.

Also, I think I should have posted this here (sorry): https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=84046

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temenid

I'd like to share a couple of "historicity" modifications that I made to my install:

1. It was remarked upon that Parthians charged knee-to-knee. I modified the unit spacing for grivpanvar & the other cataphracts to be 1.5 metres (like the Saka lancers). I haven't yet modified the default formation, but I will.

2. The purchase of 500 elephants from Chandragupta just isn't the same as conquering India and building a 4th level MIC. So I made standard Indian elephants available as (rare) mercs in Gandhara, Sattagydia, Sind, Baktria and Arachosia. It's nice, because now elephants are turning up in battles.

3. Paved roads for the Persian royal road. I'm considering even putting highways in.

I'm also considering giving the Parthians horse-archers some extra ammo, since they (at least sometimes) used camels in battle to replenish their stocks. This might be better as a later version of the shivatir.

Also, I think I should have posted this here (sorry): https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=84046

---

Sounds like a bunch of sensible changes to me. I'd like to see this stuff looked at for inclusion, since I think a lot of people don't like to include too many different mods; well, they are generally incompatible anyway.

Cheers,

Hunter

We won't be providing the highest possible upgrade for every road in those provinces (a lot of them) that the Persian Royal Road runs through. If we could make one road in them paved, we would do it probably, but since all roads in the province are upgraded, we felt the other bonuses were more appropriate.

I know the formation of those cataphracts was looked at but I don't know what the result was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temenid

2. The purchase of 500 elephants from Chandragupta just isn't the same as conquering India and building a 4th level MIC. So I made standard Indian elephants available as (rare) mercs in Gandhara, Sattagydia, Sind, Baktria and Arachosia. It's nice, because now elephants are turning up in battles.

---

Indian Elephants will be available for the Seleukids in Syria in next build. In fact new elephant models should be available in next build too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

Indian Elephants will be available for the Seleukids in Syria in next build. In fact new elephant models should be available in next build too.

---

:birthday2:

Will the skys change ?
different types of clouds ? redskys darkclouds ect.? :idea2:

Also, after seing the Celtic-Epirote aliance, isn't it possible (via script) to emulate Roman, AS, etc civil wars? what I mean is, take Spartacus, when we had certain conditions met, huge rebel armies could spawn or some towns rebel to the rebels (redundant? o0)... It'd just give more realism to an already great mod.



Cheers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAIOR

Also, after seing the Celtic-Epirote aliance, isn't it possible (via script) to emulate Roman, AS, etc civil wars? what I mean is, take Spartacus, when we had certain conditions met, huge rebel armies could spawn or some towns rebel to the rebels (redundant? o0)... It'd just give more realism to an already great mod.

---

Hmm, sounds good to me :)

Also, as you're talking about rebels, don't you mean Eleutheroi? Epirote=Greece (1 of them).


As for my suggestion: add all the buildings to the building browser (e.g. barracks, for Romani at least, aren't on there and it doesn't list the govt. types: generally confusing to see where your town can head :dizzy2:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

As for my suggestion: add all the buildings to the building browser (e.g. barracks, for Romani at least, aren't on there and it doesn't list the govt. types: generally confusing to see where your town can head :dizzy2:)

---

Unfortunatly, there is no way to do that. The building browser creates a building tree by looking at the EDB file, but it gets confused by the "not" command. The EB team have extensively used this command for their governement system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Unfortunatly, there is no way to do that. The building browser creates a building tree by looking at the EDB file, but it gets confused by the "not" command. The EB team have extensively used this command for their governement system.

---

I'm afraid I don't follow :S
What do you mean by NOT? Why not just list all possible non-unique buildings and have the ones that aren't available greyed out? I suppose you could expand some of the descriptions (e.g. for ports they EITHER cost 3500 OR 35,000 Mnai, depending on location [for Romani on Hard, which is what I'm playing]).

Also, a few more things:

Pirate blockades and blockading rebels (Eleutheroi) currently doesn't make sense. I understand that pirates would want to sink ships to grab some loot for themselves, hence they (unlike land-based rebel armies) are aggressive. However, why they would want to blockade a port remains a mystery to me, as reducing some random faction's naval trade doesn't help them in any way. Also, there is currently no point blockading rebel docks as they don't do anything anyway (i.e. are non-aggressive) and money doesn't seem to help them; they'll only train a few ships and kill you eventually, and it ties up your ships and wastes money for you.

Therefore, I propose that blockades should not only choke a rival's economy, but be beneficial to your own. I.e. the blockading ships will stop trading ships by coming in and out by looting and sinking any ships that try to enter/exit the city (like merchants who didn't know about the blockade or something). This will mean a steady drip of money into your economy (just list it as Other if you can't make a new income category) as well as hurting an enemy's.

Therefore:

If a fleet blockades a port large enough, it can pay for itself.

Blockading Eleutheroi will make sense, as you get income from it and don't anger any nations.

Pirate ships can be assigned to Eleutheroi cities which exist on land (preferably ones with naval ports ;)) and bring income to those cities/that city (meaning more troops, maybe?).

Also, I think that you shouldn't be able to build warships whilst blockaded (as you can't recruit/build/repair/retrain whilst besegied), but the enemy fleet will gradually lose units as merchant ships manage to overcome one of their fleet every once in a while.

Um...any good?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

I'm afraid I don't follow :S
What do you mean by NOT? Why not just list all possible non-unique buildings and have the ones that aren't available greyed out? I suppose you could expand some of the descriptions (e.g. for ports they EITHER cost 3500 OR 35,000 Mnai, depending on location [for Romani on Hard, which is what I'm playing]).

---

The building browser is created automatically from the text file export_descr_buildings. We have no control how the game turns the edb code into the building browser. The building browser does not understand the "not" logic function in the edb code and so those buildings with it in (which are a lot) do not appear in the building browser.

Quote:

---

Also, a few more things:

Pirate blockades and blockading rebels (Eleutheroi) currently doesn't make sense. I understand that pirates would want to sink ships to grab some loot for themselves, hence they (unlike land-based rebel armies) are aggressive. However, why they would want to blockade a port remains a mystery to me, as reducing some random faction's naval trade doesn't help them in any way. Also, there is currently no point blockading rebel docks as they don't do anything anyway (i.e. are non-aggressive) and money doesn't seem to help them; they'll only train a few ships and kill you eventually, and it ties up your ships and wastes money for you.

Therefore, I propose that blockades should not only choke a rival's economy, but be beneficial to your own. I.e. the blockading ships will stop trading ships by coming in and out by looting and sinking any ships that try to enter/exit the city (like merchants who didn't know about the blockade or something). This will mean a steady drip of money into your economy (just list it as Other if you can't make a new income category) as well as hurting an enemy's.

Therefore:

If a fleet blockades a port large enough, it can pay for itself.

Blockading Eleutheroi will make sense, as you get income from it and don't anger any nations.

Pirate ships can be assigned to Eleutheroi cities which exist on land (preferably ones with naval ports ;)) and bring income to those cities/that city (meaning more troops, maybe?).

Also, I think that you shouldn't be able to build warships whilst blockaded (as you can't recruit/build/repair/retrain whilst besegied), but the enemy fleet will gradually lose units as merchant ships manage to overcome one of their fleet every once in a while.

Um...any good?

---

The part about getting the money might be possible, but I doubt it would work very well. The rest is impossible. Eleutheroi are all one big faction, it doesn't make any sense to give a particular city a bonus as it all goes into a big pot anyway (not that it would be possible of course). We cannot change the recruitment if a port is beseiged, nor can we make the beseiging ships lose ships occasionally.

Basically you have so many ideas, but no technical know-how whatsoever. Perhaps you might want to invest a little time in looking into RTW modding, it would help you a lot with coming up with ideas.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

Pirate blockades and blockading rebels (Eleutheroi) currently doesn't make sense. I understand that pirates would want to sink ships to grab some loot for themselves, hence they (unlike land-based rebel armies) are aggressive. However, why they would want to blockade a port remains a mystery to me, as reducing some random faction's naval trade doesn't help them in any way. Also, there is currently no point blockading rebel docks as they don't do anything anyway (i.e. are non-aggressive) and money doesn't seem to help them; they'll only train a few ships and kill you eventually, and it ties up your ships and wastes money for you.

Therefore, I propose that blockades should not only choke a rival's economy, but be beneficial to your own. I.e. the blockading ships will stop trading ships by coming in and out by looting and sinking any ships that try to enter/exit the city (like merchants who didn't know about the blockade or something). This will mean a steady drip of money into your economy (just list it as Other if you can't make a new income category) as well as hurting an enemy's.

Therefore:

If a fleet blockades a port large enough, it can pay for itself.

Blockading Eleutheroi will make sense, as you get income from it and don't anger any nations.

Pirate ships can be assigned to Eleutheroi cities which exist on land (preferably ones with naval ports ;)) and bring income to those cities/that city (meaning more troops, maybe?).

Also, I think that you shouldn't be able to build warships whilst blockaded (as you can't recruit/build/repair/retrain whilst besegied), but the enemy fleet will gradually lose units as merchant ships manage to overcome one of their fleet every once in a while.

Um...any good?

---

Pirate Spawning, Pirate behaviour (blockading or not etc.) -> Hardcoded stuff. Probably meant to increase game difficulty, and to circumvent more complex ways of simulating the effects of piracy. Eg. the loss of tax income.
Testing for the Condition: "Port blockaded" -> I'm no coder, but it appears to me that there's no such condition, or set of conditions which can be turned into RTW script. Neither did/ does the engine care for it anyway.
Therefore: extracting money from blockades -> Impossible as well.


It's a pity, because out of gameplay perspective your suggestions cleary had some real merit - but unfortunately, they are all impossible to realise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

The part about getting the money might be possible... The rest is impossible.
...
Basically you have so many ideas, but no technical know-how whatsoever.

---

OK, fine, everything's impossible. Do what you want - I give up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

OK, fine, everything's impossible. Do what you want - I give up.

---

You make it sound like I'm to blame. I'm not.

Foot

Alright I have a couple of things.

1) Can you make the reforms for the Romans a little less complicated. It tends to ruin the fun of a game when you're trying to get new units and you have a list of things you have to do before.

2) Since you have Augustus Reforms historically corect you must include Lorica Segmentata. When Augustus reformed the army he had about 60 legions he disbanded about half and the others he retained and gave the Lorica Segmentata.

3)And something really has to be done about AI expansion by like 240 b.c. The Seleucid empire almost controls everything in the east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceasar14

Alright I have a couple of things.

1) Can you make the reforms for the Romans a little less complicated. It tends to ruin the fun of a game when you're trying to get new units and you have a list of things you have to do before.

2) Since you have Augustus Reforms historically corect you must include Lorica Segmentata. When Augustus reformed the army he had about 60 legions he disbanded about half and the others he retained and gave the Lorica Segmentata.

3)And something really has to be done about AI expansion by like 240 b.c. The Seleucid empire almost controls everything in the east.

---

1) We won't be making the reforms less complicated, though if we could we would like to add even more conditions. I would recommend to stop playing EB like a game and roleplay a bit more. When it becomes fustrating waiting for new units, you've stopped playing EB and started playing a run-of-the-mill RTS.

2) We have consistently said that we will not be adding lorica segmentata, as it only came into full use at the very end of our timeframe. It is possible that it may appear in small quantities in EB2, but who knows!

3) There are some fans looking at ways to control the runaway empires such as the Seleucids, and there was a problem with the eleutheroi in 0.81a where they were not getting enough money from the script. Don't worry, we don't spend all day sipping pina coladas in the tropics, some of us do work sometimes! :beam:

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

OK, fine, everything's impossible. Do what you want - I give up.

---

You might want to be more reasonable about this. There are very clear limits as to what it is possible to mod in Rome, even to a non-modder like myself. While your ideas have merit of their own they unfortunately must also be condemned to the same category as unreasonable suggestions as to adding dozens more factions and including Asia, albeit to a lesser degree; propositions ultimately impossible to achieve due to limitations in the engine.

It's not a matter of being awkward, simply a matter of knowing what can be achieved and what can't. A basic knowledge of those matters makes it easier for EB members to find good ideas, and prevents you from writing up good ideas that are impossible to implement and can't really receive anything more than a curt "that isn't possible/is hardcoded".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Basically you have so many ideas, but no technical know-how whatsoever.

---

He might have taken this as an insult. It works both ways, you know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thaatu

He might have taken this as an insult. It works both ways, you know...

---

Yeh I guess he could have, though from his posts I see it simply as a statement of fact; he has lots of ideas and he doesn't know much about RTW modding.

Herenow, it wasn't meant as an insult, but rather a suggestion that your creative mind (and it truly is creative!) would be put to good use if you picked up a few tid-bits of knowledge on RTW modding.

Foot

Agreed. IAH, you should see all the wacky proposals I came up with prior to digging in to modding the RTW engine. There are some very specific boundaries imposed by the game and we have a tiny amount of leeway, so suggestions outside of those boundaries we have to reject outright as impossible. Please do not get discouraged and take it personally!

whats the faction limit in EB2 cuz i would want to see the Yeuzhi back into it cuz i didnt play the origanal EB so i dont know what they were like and on all my games baktria always conquers all of India the steppes and selucia never does anythin about it cuz there to busy with the Ptolemaioi that Baktria goes unchecked cuz Saka is always bankrupt and pahlava/sauromatae slaughter each other leaving them with no armies so Baktria needs some extra help being checked also Saba needs a nation to compete against cuz ussaly selucia ignores them 2 and they sit back doing nothing with no one to fight.. also i saw them take the Sahara one time o.o so they deffinitly had free time lol

A small question: Will you add new formations in the next version? And maybe you should limit certain formations for certain factions, because it's possible now (1.3 patch added such option).

Has EB here tried to make:

Counter faction (or Secondary faction)
This is THE main feature of 7.0 (after the map, the new scripts and BI). I'd think most people here haven't heard of the "unlimited faction" concept. It's rather simple. You have 19 base factions (18 in our case), and batch files, that change the text files, and turn the empty slot in whatever faction we please. Due to our campaign system in 7.0 (which is explained below), we will change this slot to a faction that had a significant impact in the base faction.

Some rebel city's have there own banner, can i make the same it the faction
more faction more fun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kepper

Has EB here tried to make:

Counter faction (or Secondary faction)
This is THE main feature of 7.0 (after the map, the new scripts and BI). I'd think most people here haven't heard of the "unlimited faction" concept. It's rather simple. You have 19 base factions (18 in our case), and batch files, that change the text files, and turn the empty slot in whatever faction we please. Due to our campaign system in 7.0 (which is explained below), we will change this slot to a faction that had a significant impact in the base faction.

Some rebel city's have there own banner, can i make the same it the faction
more faction more fun

---

About RTR, eh? ~;) The idea of "unlimitted" factions certainly is appealing. It has a couple of consequences, though. One, you'd need to run batch files. Relatively minor thing, you'd say at first, but the next thing is: one batch file only changes so much. And most of RTR 7.0 counterfactions are either already covered by EB (Arverni, Saka) or just 'a bunch of rebels' (Seleukid nobles, Egyptian uprisings, Carthage rebels etc.) which is just not historically accurate. Granted, there were persian nobles who revolted etc. etc. But they did not operate as a faction, not even as an alliance. (With perhaps a few exceptions.)

And another thing: playing as Romans your counterfaction will be the Senate & Roman rebels -> means no Arveni. And that's not a matter of "choosing the right faction as a counterfaction" - it's simply inevitable: you can only do so much by batch files without significant effects to the over all covering of factions & area's. And this means that the idea of "unlimitted" factions is somewhate misleading: RTR aims for 19 times 19 and some of them won't be playable at all.

Back to your original question: no, EB is not currently actively working on adding such a system, but some members are eagerly awaiting the RTR 7.0 release to see how it all works out.

It option of Secondary faction can´t you create some tip scripts for the rebellion of the kingdom of Baktria. The ill star under the control of Arche Seleukeia but rebel to a full faction after some date like 250
Can the nomad faction have the option Horde after losing there last town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kepper

It option of Secondary faction can´t you create some tip scripts for the rebellion of the kingdom of Baktria. The ill star under the control of Arche Seleukeia but rebel to a full faction after some date like 250

---

EB has always maintained that every faction should be playable from the start, otherwise what would be the point. Thus we have Baktria a seperate faction from 272, so that people can get to play this most important of factions. In other words, no we will not have emerging factions.

Quote:

---

Can the nomad faction have the option Horde after losing there last town.

---

I believe this is a feature in Barbarian Invasion, and not avaliable in RTW. As EB is made for RTW not BI, we will not be including this feature.

Foot

Is Baktria a protectorate of the Arche when the game starts or just an ally. Ive never played them so I have no idea, but since they were a satrap till 250 maybe a being a protectorate would be a good fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwardvs Primvs

Is Baktria a protectorate of the Arche when the game starts or just an ally. Ive never played them so I have no idea, but since they were a satrap till 250 maybe a being a protectorate would be a good fit.

---

I think they start as a protectorate, or at least an alliance.

They are an ally.

Foot

Shouldn't Auguri buildings give +ve unit morale? Because the soldiers will be more keen to fight knowing the eagles and sheep livers are on their side, guaranteeing them victory.

On a similar note, maybe Medici/hostpitals should increase the chances of generals in the settlement getting doctor (or similar) ancillaries/+ve HP stats?

My initial criticisms after maybe 60 hours of gameplay:

1. Too many character traits. They become meaningless.

2. Too many population growth and happiness boni; not enough law & order boni. No modelling of diseases & epidemics - couple of events needed there. Maybe famine too, if player fails to buiuld granaries? Anyway, there should be situations resulting in population loss or negative growth, as it's sometimes called.

3. Cavalry combat stats are waaaay out of line. At first, I thought they were typos. The charge bonus shouldn't be bigger than 2x melee attack value. The melee attack values should be sharply revised upward, roughly matching those of corresponding (light and heavy) infantry. Please keep in mind that cavalry could and did fight on foot, and that a few episodes from the Hundred Years' War do not mean a heavily armoured cavalryman was useless when not charging/dismounted.

Also, it would be nicer for gameplay (though ahistorical) if the player could build whatever type of government they wanted whenever they wanted, although of course setting up a Type 1 government far, far, away would have to be made much more difficult. One way to achieve this would be to create an administrative unit - very expensive, and very slow (would be realistic too - after all, an administration consists primarily of people, not buildings). Upon arriving in the chosen town, the unit would be disbanded, and the option to build an appopriate structure would be enabled. Till that time, the only government type available would be a provisional military government, which would not allow anything apart from building the most basic units and structures. Naturally, this would be viable as an option for human players only - the AI cheats now anyway.

Off to revise cavalry stats and play some more. Great mod!

EDIT: Hmmm, just had a look at cavalry unit stats and they look ok - diff. numbers from those quoted in in-game descriptions. I'm playing as the Sweboz, so only started looking at cavalry closely after a long while.

Re diseases: vanilla RTW had the plague, rather neatly done too - units became infected, and could in turn infect towns if moved inside. Is it gone in EB?

EDIT EDIT: Uh, looked in the wrong Data folder... Sure enough, the majority of cavalry has HALF the melee attack of most archers, to give an example (and some European cavalry has a stronger ranged attack than melee attack). From what I know, in EB times an archer had a small club or big knife or small axe as a melee weapon. I do think this is wrong, but maybe it works in terms of gameplay. Found plague in another folder, and am really surprised not to have had it occuring in ca 80 turns - I only played three campaigns in vanilla RTW, but I had it occurring repeatedly in every campaign.

I know that we don't really have control over those events like disease and famine, but I do know that pop growth bonuses are supposed to be reduced at some point. We'd love to make famines happen, but the game just doesn't allow for negative bonuses (to be truly negative that is - they can reduce you back to "0", but no further).

I don't think there is a way to detect the disbanding of a certain type of unit in a city. I just don't think the game can sense that sort of thing. We have thought about making an expanded type1 govt available in further regions, but we aren't sure about it yet and how we would make it work. It is something we've thought about doing though.

I'll leave stats talk to the stats guys. But I will say that they have put hundreds and hundreds of hours into testing the stats we have now, and while there are problems with individual units likely still, the method for awarding points for armor and charges is quite complex and gives a pretty realistic result in the team members' view.

Glad you are enjoying things! I'll put some more thought into the possibilities of those expanded type1's though - blacksnail's been thinking about it I know, but we still aren't sure.

Regarding cavalry, my view is that they have armor ratings that are too high. It is almost impossible for some troops to hit them, when in fact, they are riding on unarmoured horses and do not have shields or armour equivalent to a good infantry man.

Hetaroi should not be plowing into enemys and then staying there to chew them up. Bogged down cavalry should be more vulnerable than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Southern Hunter

Regarding cavalry, my view is that they have armor ratings that are too high. It is almost impossible for some troops to hit them, when in fact, they are riding on unarmoured horses and do not have shields or armour equivalent to a good infantry man.

Hetaroi should not be plowing into enemys and then staying there to chew them up. Bogged down cavalry should be more vulnerable than that.

---

I think they are fine the way they are.

1. RTW does not allow for horsemen to be unhorsed but still able to fight on foot, somthing that happened.

2. The Hetaroi are clad in mail and a muscled cuirass, which, i would find to be extremely high quality protection, allowing them to take a few hits and still be alive to say the least.

3. Even hetaroi seem to take considerable casualties if i leave them to melee with anything stronger then peltastai, so I'm not quite sure what you speak of when you say "there to chew them up" since i have never experienced them chewing anybody up. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MastaSpoofa

I think they are fine the way they are.

1. RTW does not allow for horsemen to be unhorsed but still able to fight on foot, somthing that happened.

2. The Hetaroi are clad in mail and a muscled cuirass, which, i would find to be extremely high quality protection, allowing them to take a few hits and still be alive to say the least.

3. Even hetaroi seem to take considerable casualties if i leave them to melee with anything stronger then peltastai, so I'm not quite sure what you speak of when you say "there to chew them up" since i have never experienced them chewing anybody up. :laugh4:

---

The horses have no armour and would be easily wounded / killed in an all-in melee against formed troops. And yet, because of high armor values, the infantry do no damage at all on occasions. If a significant number of men become unhorsed, the unit would cease to operate as a significant military formation.

When I play with them they hit the rear/ flanks of all kinds of HI and just sit there chewing through them. Sometimes I pull them out and re-charge, because they do most damage during the charge phase.

Hetaroi were potent because of Elan, Shock, Maneuvrability, NOT because they had somehow got heaps of armor on them.

Can you the Somatophylakes Strategou (Baktrian Early Bodyguard) able to use bows.
Or ill the Baktrian later Bodyguard have bows it some tip of reform

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Southern Hunter

The horses have no armour and would be easily wounded / killed in an all-in melee against formed troops. And yet, because of high armor values, the infantry do no damage at all on occasions. If a significant number of men become unhorsed, the unit would cease to operate as a significant military formation.

When I play with them they hit the rear/ flanks of all kinds of HI and just sit there chewing through them. Sometimes I pull them out and re-charge, because they do most damage during the charge phase.

Hetaroi were potent because of Elan, Shock, Maneuvrability, NOT because they had somehow got heaps of armor on them.

---

Agree with MastaSpoofa on this one, but perhaps not for the same reasons.

I posted in another thread about cavalry and how they only do two things in the game- Skirmish and Close Combat. There's no ability to charge, and evade, if the enemy don't break. The charge has to press home due to the game mechanics.

MOST cavalry in this era (including the heavies) just did not do this ie- press home charges against foot of they didn't break before contact.

The only way to model this in the game is to reduce charge values, increase their defence values and give them the 'frighten foot' ability. Then it requires a level of 'imagination' to visualise those cavalry, who in the game are fighting tooth and nail against your foot, are in actuality loitering very close by to threaten the foot, issueing challenges, launching charges and breaking off before contact, in an effort to break the foots morale, or at least lower it sufficiently so that when enemy foot then engage them to their front they decide their best option is to flee.

Anyways, that's my thoughts on the matter.

Cheers,

Quilts

P.S. Will try your mod soon I hope.....just need to find time.

Any thoughts on my suggestion (about Auguri and Medici)?

Regarding Cavalry, all I say is they gave them too little weight. I edited that myself (to more realistic levels altough not totally realistic as that would make units go flying like 200 meters in the air) and now, they are much better. And regarding hetairoi, I never faced what you tell. WHat dificulty are you plying. If they stop in melee, they get ravaged by infantry. Also, the high armor values represent the total armor as it is impossoble to separate the armor of the rider from the horse. And the stats of cavalry (the attack) is to represent the lack of ability of your cavalry to stay in melee for too long (with only 4 atack there aren't much units you can damage no?)...


Cheers...

In my experience, elite cavalry will generally be taken down by inferior spearmen. Skirmishers will generally get eaten, but they usually flee quite early. Generally, I find that keeping cavalry in melee with an unengaged unit is a really quick way of not having cavalry any more.

Foot

Yep, Medium Battle Difficulty is a Cavalry In Melee killer. :yes:

That is, as long as you're not using tank equivalents. But Hetairoi BG (AS, Ptolemies & Maks) can get eaten alive by Pantodapoi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

Shouldn't Auguri buildings give +ve unit morale? Because the soldiers will be more keen to fight knowing the eagles and sheep livers are on their side, guaranteeing them victory.

On a similar note, maybe Medici/hostpitals should increase the chances of generals in the settlement getting doctor (or similar) ancillaries/+ve HP stats?

---

I can't speak to the first idea - I'm not a historian by any means - but as for the second, that's pretty cool. I'm not very familiar with the ancillary/trait system but if it isn't in there already, we can run it by the trait folks. As for the HP thing, I know that giving HPs to generals is generally something we avoid - but we'll check it out and see what can be done.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

Shouldn't Auguri buildings give +ve unit morale? Because the soldiers will be more keen to fight knowing the eagles and sheep livers are on their side, guaranteeing them victory.

---

Omens can also be against you, although I'd imagine they were sometimes used as a propaganda tool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

On a similar note, maybe Medici/hostpitals should increase the chances of generals in the settlement getting doctor (or similar) ancillaries/+ve HP stats?

---

They do help you get doctors, and all of the various healer/druid/medicine traits. Dunno about HP bonuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thaatu

I'd imagine they were sometimes used as a propaganda tool.

---

Yeah, exactly, I mean, think about it:

1. Generals always put spin on whatever omens they get before a battle in their pre-battle speeches (in-game) to make victory seem imminent and to make the soldiers fight harder.
   
2. Probably only a few people other than the Auguri knew about the art of inspecting livers - infantry grunts would especially be unaware of its intricacies, I should imagine - so it would be pretty easy to lie to them. And no-one would really be able to prove otherwise, since we (in 2007) all know it's a load of rubbish.
   
3. No-one in their right mind (in actual Roman times or in the game) would spend money on something that gave them worse troops.
   
4. The Auguri could tell the troops the exact day to fight on (theoretically, I mean), as each battle could happen on any day in a 3-month period. This would make them feel more confident.

All this means: more confident troops! :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quilts

There's no ability to charge, and evade, if the enemy don't break. The charge has to press home due to the game mechanics.

MOST cavalry in this era (including the heavies) just did not do this ie- press home charges against foot of they didn't break before contact.

The only way to model this in the game is to reduce charge values, increase their defence values and give them the 'frighten foot' ability. Then it requires a level of 'imagination' to visualise those cavalry, who in the game are fighting tooth and nail against your foot, are in actuality loitering very close by to threaten the foot, issueing challenges, launching charges and breaking off before contact, in an effort to break the foots morale, or at least lower it sufficiently so that when enemy foot then engage them to their front they decide their best option is to flee.

---

What a fascinating idea!

Worth pursuing at some point, since I agree with you that cavalry charges right now do not work as they should. One has to take into account how the AI will handle the altered combat model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Southern Hunter

What a fascinating idea!

Worth pursuing at some point, since I agree with you that cavalry charges right now do not work as they should. One has to take into account how the AI will handle the altered combat model.

---

Wish I could take credit for it. All I've done is extrapolate what I'm forced to do as a historical (not to be confused with Warhammer in any version or form) miniatures table-top wargamer, into the computer game world.

If the units are engaged on the screen then you would need to 'imagine' they were 'actively engaged'. This would involve some or all (at the same time) of-
- Charges/Counter charges, but very little actual face to face contact. The cavalry have the manouverability and realise they will lose their advantage by fighting 'statically' against a solid infantry formation.
- Challenges/Challenges answered, with limited casualties to both sides but probably more to the infantry, for manouverability reasons, who occasionally find they get isolated from the main body of troops.
- Exchanges of missile weapons. Probably favouring the cavalry again, as they are moving at speed (harder to hit) 'firing' at a large and largely stationary mass of troops. Even an Equites would throw his cavalry spear if a target was just too tempting. Afterall, he still has a sword.
- Threatening manouevering by the cavalry and counter-manouevering by the infantry to not leave themselves vulnerable.
- Lots of other possibilites.

If the units are not actually engaged (perhaps the cavalry withdrew rom combat) then the cavalry would be doing what they appear to be doing, or manouevering threateningly.....or maybe just sitting out of reach resting :beam:

This sort of model requires the cavalry to 'last' when the units are actually engaged on the screen, therefore they need a high defense. Not because their tanks, but because they avoid the need to be tanks by their increased manouverability.

In the same light, the charge bonus has to be virtually done away with. It's 'game effect' is really a bit of a small scale action Medieval era style 'attribute' anyway (ooh, that will upset a few people.....sorry).

Again, in the same light, the infantry shouldn't drop like flies either, so the actual cavalry attack factor needs to be relative to the norm.

Ancient cavalry's main battlefield effect was exploiting flanks (nobody likes being surrounded), denying flanks, and pursueing a routed enemy. At teh moment they are used as mounted formation battering rams :thumbsdown:

Anyways, said enough. If you want to discuss further feel free to PM me.

Cheers,

Quilts

A few thoughts from my ongoing Sauromatae campaign regarding areas of recruitment.
The Sarmatian foot-archers can only be recruited in my starting provinces in pastoralism as far as I can tell, although the Scythian ones are available in more provinces under pastoralism, not completely sure about the Scythians though but the things is I'm playing Sarmatians and they should be recruitable in my settled areas along with the Sarmatian spearmen who seem to be available in more places.
The High King Court and the other Courts who provide you with noble cavalry only do so in my starting provinces and one or two neigbouring ones perhaps expanding their area of recruitment to all the Gavas and Gelonus and Tanais would be a good idea.
Also I just took over the Saka lands and in Sulek ,Xiyu and Bin-Kath I can recruit only Roxolanii nobles from their High-King courts and some lancers and the standard 3 Has from the Camps (Sarmatian, Aorsi and Roxolanii non-nobles) perhaps making it possible to recruit some Saka specific troops would give more variety to the steppe-flavor.
And most other nomadic factions seem to always go for nomadism the drawback was when I took over the Parthian and Saka steppe lands to the east (Gava-Matzakata, Gava-Alanna and Gava-Saka and Xiyu) I only had cavalry armies and no option to recruit some cheap troops to garrison I had to ferry them from the Hai heartland to the north and then east (it's a really long walk).
Only now in 200 BC after taking Baktra I can supply them better with cheap skirmishers to garrison.
Great job you guys I actually enjoy very much playing and also the feeling that my opinion and the other people's who play and post are at least being read and maybe taken into consideration. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michaelis

3. Cavalry combat stats are waaaay out of line. At first, I thought they were typos. The charge bonus shouldn't be bigger than 2x melee attack value. The melee attack values should be sharply revised upward, roughly matching those of corresponding (light and heavy) infantry. Please keep in mind that cavalry could and did fight on foot, and that a few episodes from the Hundred Years' War do not mean a heavily armoured cavalryman was useless when not charging/dismounted.

---

Just to clear this up. Cavalry in general have two attack values, one for their lance/spear and one for their sidearm. The lance/spear has a low attack, but high charge, very high lethality, and ap. The sidearm generally has the same stats as comparable (same quality with same weapon) infantry. Fighting in close quarters with a huge lance isn't effective, its a shock weapon for a charge. Hence, high charge values with a low attack. If you want to dig in with your cavalry (probably not a good idea) use their sidearm, they'll perform much better in melee.

Hi will you have any changes in the future
of adding more time? And why not?
after 70 a.d. Romes empire expanded alot after this time.
With the idea of haveing the jewish upraieing in those times.
plus different styles of roman armour later.
thanks

While that would be interesting, the goal is to stick to RTWs timeframe; also, expanding the time played would be problematic considering the limited amount of units EB can add. And that considering that most players seem to finish a lot earlier than 9 ad makes an even longer game somewhat pointless.

Besides, there weren't huge areas added after EBs end, and those peoples the Romans did come into conflict with for a large part couldn't be represented by the current factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swhunter

plus different styles of roman armour later.
thanks

---

I sense another lorica segmentata debate coming... :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swhunter

Hi will you have any changes in the future
of adding more time? And why not?
after 70 a.d. Romes empire expanded alot after this time.
With the idea of haveing the jewish upraieing in those times.
plus different styles of roman armour later.
thanks

---

For the official answer: No, there are no plans to continue EB2 past our current end date. We have always planned to represent history to the best of our knowledge and within the limits of the RTW (and soon, the MTW2) engine. The fact that Rome expanded a lot after our end date would only matter were we a mod that focused on Rome and the Roman Empire. As we do not there is no good reason to do so.

I hope you find this answer helpful.

Foot

Well guys you MUST change the defence points that every soldier takes from armour and shields because some are very inaccurate like those naked guys and the haploi hoplitai 5 armour from were ?????? and the shields defence 5 for all piked units ? and 4 for roman scutum and hoplon which they were more protective.... and 3 for principes and hastati and by the way the camillan hastati
have 7 armour with no armour and the cohors reformata 10 with the lorica hamata ??????????