Printable View
Have you used enough question marks, or do you need some more. We are not going to go over this again and again. Perhaps it should be included in the FAQ. We are very happy with our current stat system and we are not going to change it. I'm sure someone from the stating team will be able to tell you more.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wicked
Foot
:oops: sorry Foot that i upset you it was not in my intension :beam: but i didnt know that this matter was in talks before... perhaps you can direct me in a relative thread :yes: ?
There are several concerning minor issues, but nothing that would be much interest to read. We haven't released our statting system, so unfortunately we cannot give you much more info. Additionally this isn't my area, so I don't really know what I'm talking about.
Perhaps, if you don't want to upset me, you shouldn't make demands of the team. This is the suggestion thread, so give suggestions but don't demand new content or changes to original content. Its just a way of approaching things carefully.
Foot
If the naked warriors do have a 5 armour bonus as The Wicked says, then I too find that rather illogical, although perhaps it's meant to reflect their toughened, weathered skin ;)
No, its meant to represent their helmet.
Foot
Hmm, fair enough I suppose - does M2 subdivide defence bonuses at all (into head, body etc.) or does it keep the same system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wicked
Armor counts helmets as well. Clothing gives some armor, pectorals, greaves etc. Its not just high end body armor.
For example, Camillan Hastati have a helment, a heavy shirt, and a greave on the leading leg. All of those things contribute to their armor rating.
Our stat system is seriously thought out, has undergone lots of testing and adjustment, and continues to undergo testing and adjustment, we didn't just make up numbers.
Do you guys plan to limit the effect of experience somehow? Maybe increasing overall stats and giving e.g. 3 chevrons to every unit is a good way of accomplishing this? Something surely must be done.
Any chance of the first government (the military law one) giving more than a 5% boost? Once empires get big it gets harder to keep distant cities, it gets to a point that its impossible. Could be nice to be able to put martial law in place and wait for the unrest to die down so you can establish a proper government. Lets face it, a newly conquered province isn't going to have the organisation to rebel with a 20 stack army sitting in it.
Can you make a scripts form a army if it make a long siege a city, the army get some tip of plague for force the player to attack the city.
I posted this in another thread and I thought it belonged here:
Could you make the dynamic reforms only for the human player or make them less complicated for the AI?
If more reforms are going to be dynamic, I hope all of them are in the final build. Then perhaps the ones for the AI should only depend on date and maybe provinces held (but less provinces than what would be needed if the faction was human-controlled ).
That way there is a fair chance a Romani AI will get to Marian, or other factions that are going to have dynamic reform soon (i heard something about the celts) can get their reforms even if under AI control.
I haven't been playing EB very long, but it seems to me the winter campaigning movement restrictions don't work too well. It's a beautiful idea - but the way things are, armies led by a captain move much faster in the winter than armies led by a general, which is somewhat absurd.
Using armies with only a captain for an offensive is considered cheating. We unfortunately have no way to influence captain movement.
Maybe decreasing the "starting_action_points" in descr_character and increasing the movement rate of the generals and the "agents" (spies, assassins, diplomats) by hidden traits will do it?
That would unfairly reduce the movement of legitimate troop movements. If players want to "cheat" then we are not going to stop them, we just suggest that it ruins their gaming experience. There is no reason to be concerned about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybvep
Foot
Hmmm, I would suggest that when a modification necessitates introducing a house rule, it might not be such a good modification after all - no matter how sound the concept behind it.
Let's face it, movement rates in games are from Fantasy Island, period... Ships take a year to sail 300 miles, etc. I would like to comment out the movement restrictions. Would someone be kind enough to tell me if this calls for more adjustments than commenting out the relevant trait in the character trait file, without calling me a cheat? :-D
A modification is no good if it needs *a* house rule?
The movement restrictions for characters that can make more realistic and enjoyable things like summer campaigning issues, running out of provisions, being sick, etc., are a fantastic addition, and we suggest that all campaigns outside of one's own territories be led by a character and not a captain. Really, it's a terrific addition.
Personally I use captain-led armies from time-to-time, and never considered it a cheat. And sometimes you might have so few family members that captain led armies are the only option. But usually it's not a good idea, since even though your army might move a little faster (usually the reverse), you'll pay a price for it in several ways:Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelis
- The General's usually kick-ass unit is not part of your force (try a few Pahlava battles without generals and see how much fun that is)
- Your captain's "leadership" has *zero* impact on the battle. No command stars, no morale, nada.
- Without a General, you get no cool new ancillaries or traits from winning the battle.
I consider all of those penalty enough, and no house rule is required. To be honest I can't think of ANY *mandatory* EB-specific house rules. Bridge battles are frowned upon, but that's an RTW AI issue. Other than that, it's really up to you.
Firstly, we would never call you a cheat if you wished to play the game as you wish to play the game. Many of RTW's hardcodes necessitate that as a modification we must have certain house-rules. But they are just that, house-rules, we don't stop people from playing otherwise, and we don't call those people cheats - we also don't think that by breaking our house-rules that you are getting the most enjoyment out of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelis
As far as the EB team continue pushing RTW and, soon, MTW2 to the limit of their original capabilities we will need to have house-rules. You say that this is a bad thing, I say that this makes us one of the best mods ever. Our changes reach nearly every part of this game and our modifications have stretched RTW to breaking point (you may well notice that many people who run MTW2 smoothly and quickly have some trouble with RTW loading speeds), and that makes us a good modification and not a bad one. One of the consequences of this is that we have to introduce house-rules for the sake of consistency of the gameplay. If you don't like it, that is fine, but I entirely disagree with you that this makes us a bad mod. It would make us a bad mod if it was because we couldn't be bothered to do the actual modding. We can, we just can't go any further.
Foot
Whne EB2 comes out the team can implement this a lot better. Just make the probability of a captain led army outside your own province boarders rebel =1.
If people don't take generals with them, vthe armies will just rebel.
Cheers...
That's exactly what I wish to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
I enjoy a game most when I do not have to create/abide by any house rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Yes, IMO the necessity of introducing a house rule means an issue isn't resolved satisfactorily. BTW, I think we have a misunderstanding; as I said elsewhere, I think your mod (EB) is one of the best ever - full agreement here. It's the modification of this specific thingie - movement rates - that I don't like, precisely because it requires a house rule to make it work.There are a few other things that I don't like about EB - nothing's ever perfect in this world - but this doesn't change the fact I'm enjoying EB more than any other game I've discovered over the past couple of years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
See what I said above about there being a misunderstanding. Now, can anyone tell me off the top of their head whether I can comment out the winter campaigning thing without dire consequences? If you don't know offhand, cool - I'm not asking anyone to look through files just because I'm too lazy to do it myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Seeing as this is the 'suggestion' thread, I was indeed answering your suggestion that we should remove "house rules" as such a modification that "necessitates introducing a house rule, it might not be such a good modification after all", which, given the thread, does indeed suggest a suggestion. If your point was simply to ask where you can comment out the trait for winter campaigning, then why did you post it in this thread, which is explicitly for the purposes of making suggestions to the improvement.
If I misunderstood you it is simply because you have failed to state what you wanted to the satisfaction of my own intellect. You were neither direct nor posting appropriately, both of which, in the environs of the internet forum, are fully capable of misleading any reader. Indeed, your post seems to have been confused or at least moving wildly from one point to another. At first you remark on our "house rule" of only using a general for attacking outside of controlled provinces (though certainly with a very general wording), yet you then inquire as to our movement restrictions (which is what confused me). Our movement restrictions are not house-rules, though certainly they can be removed if you find it necessary. House-rules are regarded (at least for EB), rules that are followed which represent conditions in the game, which we cannot reproduce given the hardcodes of the RTW engine. The movement restrictions don't fall into that as they are certainly represented by the engine.
As to how to remove them, I couldn't tell you the precise whereabouts, but once you've found the internal name for the effect you are looking for (in this case the movement reduction one), it should be an easy case of searching the export_descr_character_traits.txt file for the traits that carry that same effect and commenting out the said effect from each trait.
EDIT: I'm sorry Michaelis, I've only now seen your first post on the subject, and I understand the second one much better. Sorry for the misunderstanding, entirely my fault. I should have read the beginning of the discussion (or at least remember doing so), and my mistake was not to. Again, I apologise, as I feel that my above post mistakenly accused you of something that you did not in fact do.
Foot
Yeah, our trait guy could answer it, but Foot's pretty much on the right track. Other traits like the supply lines stuff is more complicated, but you could take a look at that too and see if there is anything there to comment out.
Oh, didn't vanilla have generals get tired after moving so far? The same issue pretty much I mean? It's been years since I played vanilla, but I thought their generals/characters could get tired from forced marching or exhausted or something like that, but captains were immune (i.e., traitless). Or is all of that EB stuff too?
Its been so long since I've played vanilla, and I've played EB so much, that I cannot tell which of our core stuff was in vanilla and which of it we made up. It sounds so very necessary that it must be vanilla, but it sounds so ingenious that it must be EB. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
Foot
All that is EB stuff. If it was vanilla, why wouldn't they make it count for the captains as well?
I apologize if my comment was taken as a derogatory remark. I was simply trying to say that we can't affect the captains, and because they have the ability to circumvent our logistics/movement traits I meant that it is best to not use them for offensives. I won't be looking over your shoulder.Quote:
Would someone be kind enough to tell me if this calls for more adjustments than commenting out the relevant trait in the character trait file, without calling me a cheat? :-D
You should probably not comment out the trait as some of your generals may currently have them, which I think could cause trouble. You should comment out all triggers that affect the given traits instead.
Well, he could comment the Effect MovementPoints lines in the traits if that's what he really want.
Thanks guys, I was worried that if I comment out the relevant lines in the traits file alone it might cause problems - didn't know whether the movement restriction thing wasn't linked to other stuff elsewhere.
I haven't played EB enough to offer a proper critique/suggestion block in this thread, but I will at some point. So watch out, Foot ;-).
I hate house rules because they destroy the suspension of disbelief for me. I like to lose myself in a game, transporting myself into a fantasy world, and when I have to remind myself that I can't do this or that because of that or other, it just destroys the experience. I'd rather play without some features activated.
Kull, everything you said about fighting with a captain-led army is right on, but you didn't mention one thing: a captain can get promoted to a general after the battle. It gives me a great thrill when that happens and yes, I shall continue to fight with captain-led armies.
And finally, to make this post fit the suggestions subject of this thread: I think the campaign goals might be a little too modest. I have played four campaigns so far - two with Sweboz, two with the Getai - and from what I saw so far both can be easily completed around 250 BC on VH/M. Maybe they should be renamed as quick campaigns, a full campaign requiring the player to conquer the known world or sthg ambitious like that? BTW, I couldn't completely finish the Getai campaigns; got a game-terminating CTD after about 80 turns in both cases (just as I was about to wipe the floor with the Romans! Grrr). Interestingly, both Sweboz campaigns played out without a single CTD.
My apologies for writing a post that's all over the place.
There are some temporary fixes available that might get you past the Getai CTDs. Check out the stickies in the tech help forum.
Good idea, thanks. I installed v2, BTW, but it didn't seem to help.
I've started a campaign with the Lusotannians in the meantime - wow, some breathtakingly beautiful units there. Anyway, I thought of a possible solution to the movement thing. It's like this: increase the movement rate of generals so that their movement rate equals the captains' AFTER the restrictions kick in. Of course, that would make general-led armies significantly faster - which wouldn't be unbelievable, after all one assumes an army led by a general is managed more efficiently. But I do not know how it would work out in gameplay. Seems okay at first glance, there would be an extra incentive to have a general leading the army, and of course the big reward would be that it would erase the need for a house rule to make things work.
If someone could point me to the right file, I'd be willing to test it out. Sorry for asking, it's just that I'm unfamiliar with the game files (on my first sally I looked in the wrong data file, lol).
PM me, we are thinking along the same lines.
To change, I've got a suggestion that is not about gameplay.
We all agree that a major quality of EB is the educational aspect. I love the buildings' descriptions, and the unique building's one are very interesting to figure the background of a region.
Here is my suggestion : would it be possible to include such descriptions for important cities ? For exemple, some may be surprised to find out that Massalia is a greec city inside a celtic country. Some may love to know more about the city of Pergamon (I know there is a text about it in the Eleutheroi section of EB's site). A brief ingame text about the foundation and history of the city may explain those things and help the player to know what exactly the city he've just sacked is.
The addition of those text would be possible through indestructible buildings, like for some unique buildings. I understand this would be a big job (even if it is only for "important" cities), but I think it would be a great addition.
PS : Blacksnail, why can't I access the MIC Cost/Build times and EB Building Summary sheet linked in your sig ?
That's a great idea Salinoc, but unfortunately we are unable to do so with the RTW engine due to the limits we have with building complexes. However, it may please you to hear that we are looking to do exactly this for EB2.
As for the links, they are inaccessible because they are Backstage. I use them so much and access the Org from so many different computers that I needed a quick link I could pop to from anywhere. When I have some solid time to convert it for public use I'm going to post it to the Mod subforum, but I've been too busy lately to do so.
Salinoc, the year in history traits are also great and educational and I heard that the team are making more of them and perhaps enhancing the way they show up.
Are they still through traits, or did you manage to make another way to show them? Because sometimes I miss them because I don't check the Faction announcement or my faction leader that often or carefully, having a 50+ provinces empire with a lot of family members can have that effect.
That's great news ! Thank you for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by blacksnail
Actually we are doing this for some settlements by adding traits to the general who conquers those. It has low priority though.
Yeah, try playing as Makedonia (and some other Greeks). Nearly every city you take give a trait that has no bonuses but has a long description of the city and territory you just took.Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
EDIT: I created a new thread as bovi suggested for the coversation that was \/.
I think pursuing cavalry should always get a speed increase compared to routing cavalry, so that there's a chance that you can actually KILL their general (and normal routing cavalry, of course).
Not possible, AFAIK. Anyway, the number of kills inflicted during pursuit is already unrealistically high, and I think that a general ought to be hard to catch.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
Hello to everybody !!! Well today i was playing my Makedonian campaing and i noticed in one unit of misthophoroi pezhetairoi that i had them in normal formation (no phalanx) were hiding in tall grass and you know how the grafic skeleton is in this position.. they act as they were covered behind their shield while enemy archers shooting arrows at them..now this is my suggestion if it is possible. While in normal formation piked phallanxes attacked by missile troops the defensive position that the phalanx units take is it possible to be the hiding move? sorry for my english:beam:
I am afraid not. Although it would make sense for troops to crouch when under missile fire with no enemies nearby, but the R:TW engine does not allow you to create extra animations or specify different conditions for existing animations.
You could maybe reanimate the "ready" formation, but that would mean that all your troops kneal down in capitulation whenever the enemy comes near them.
Hmm ok then ...but it would be a great site to see phalanx pikemen kneel and hide behind their shields too bad .. anyway thanks for your time guys..
Is there something similar in M2TW?Do the soldiers rise their shields to protect from arrows?If so it would be great to see!
Hello everybody. I would like to ask if there are some plans for the new model of general for Sauromataes, Sakas and Lusotananns? Now they share this same model (I think that its the model of Briton general from Vanilla RTW) and altough I would like to try the nomads (sauromatae or sakas) I am thinking that if there will be a reskin for their generals I would probably rather wait and play with the new skin when it is done. (and in meantime I could try some other faction/s - So far I have played for Aedui and Baktrians - both were great and wonderfull campaings)
And also I would like to ask if it wouldnt be better for Lustonanns to have an infantry unit for their generals (fammily members) instead of a mount one. In some future build. (if someone could consider this). I think that since those guys liked the ambusehes so much that it would be not abberant to have them this way (from historicall point of view). And also It could give (i think) a more variety to overall gamplay (it would be nice to see another infantry familly member unit next to already existing Sweboz and Koinon Helenon). And from technicall point of view it wouldnt be a difficult taks, since there already are those two simmilar units : one is Lusotannan Elite Medium Cavalry "Ambakaro Epones" (currently serving as a fammily member bodyguards) and the other is Lusotannan Elite Shock Infantry "Ambakaro". They look simmilar and I think that it would be sweet to switch them.
New generals for Sarmatians are done I think. I believe the Saka one is under development. I don't know the status of the Lusitanian one. Parthian one is done I think too. Pontos' new general was previewed the other day of course.
If you're still having problems with overgrown settlements, I recommend reducing the health bonus of the first level sewers/soap makers and healers from 2 to 1, so they won't give a full 1% growth bonus, but a 0.5% bonus. I've been testing this in my campaign and in the year 245 BCE most steppe settlements are large towns. Only Carthage, Alexandria and Seleukeia have grown to huge cities. Rome, Capua and Antiocheia are large cities, and the Roman cities are constantly recruiting troops that they are sending against me, which keeps their population level in check. Looks a lot better to my eyes at least.
I got the idea for this from the "Should we include Imperial legionaries?" thread, and I rather like it, so I'll voice it here too:
Thesis:
Since there are more regional units than unit slots, and many juicy regionals get left out, maybe we should ditch the mercenary concept (which is defective in RTW anyway) and convert all our mercenary units into regionals.
Rationale:
The Mercenary system in RTW is kinda messed up- first of all there were not huge professional armies wandering around, just waiting for hire. Moreover, it unbalances the game since the AI will just spam huge armies of elite mercs along with weakish faction troops. I feel the team must agree with me on some level, because in the case of Carthage, their "mercenary" armies are really foreign levies. Surely this should be the same for other nations too? If Carthage's mercs are really levies, why should anyone else's mercs be...mercs?
Just imagine how many new units we could have if we left behind most mercenaries (which are usually just copies of other factions' core troops) and let regional units symbolize foreign levy and mercenaries!
I agree with you , Imperator...If anyone did got to hate that file (mercs), that would be me ...:dizzy2:
Only problem is..AI cannot manage to recruit enough units to be any challenge to anyone...I was toying with that idea and after i tried it, it just doesn't work.Even Seleuks with 20+ provinces cannot manage to muster more then 3 stacks in whole teritory, and cover their losses in fight with other factions and rebels...
In our new mod that Redmeth and i just finished , AI is getting way more money then in original EBBS file , and yet we had to double(or more then double it) the numbers from my last modified file just to keep AI floating.
I do support your idea , as long there is a way to provide AI with enough units..Oh god , trust me if anyone does , i do..:yes:
It has some disadvantages:Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator
1) There really aren't that much mercs to begin with, so it won't be effective.
2) Continuing your line of thought the AI will field subsequently less powerful armies - and then we're onto the dreaded all-militia armies again...
... BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY...
3) We haven't reached our unit limit yet. Okay, some may have to be left out since there are internal limits per culture to keep balance between cultures.
4) History has provided quite a few examples of generals hiring mercenaries...
5) Mercenaries serve as a pool to fuel uprisings - though this may result in bugs from time to time... (but only because of maintainance issues with .txt files)
I didn't mean to lose ALL our mercenaries, just maybe half or three-quarters so there are still some mercs around to help the AI, just not enough to allow the AI to summon instant-armies, while also increasing unit diversity.
Sounds like a good deal to me...:juggle2:
By the way- how many free unit slots are there? And for that matter, how many unit slots are taken up by mercs? If there are about 50 unit slots devoted to mercs (I have no idea if that's right or not) then we could take just 25 or 30, and that number goes a lot farther if you add 25 more regional MIC troops!
Hi all! I recently installed EB , although i play the TW series since MTW was released, and i think is the best RTW mod so far...
However, there i have some remarks to make about the names of some Hellenic units and buildings. For example; In game we have the "Agrianikoi Pelekophoroi" or the "Ippeis Thessalikoi" .Instead, it should be "Agrianes Pelekophoroi" and "Ippeis Thessaloi".
Also, there are names of buildings that have letters missing or wrong spelling. I'll try make a list.
There are things called alternate spellings. Different variants of pretty much the same thing. Thessalikoi is an alternate to Thessaloi. Agrianes is an alternate to Agrianikoi. Seems especially common with adjectival forms of town names like we are talking about.
This idea might not necessarily be possible because of the hardcoded limit but Ive been reading up on the carthaginian military recently because im an ancient military history buff and i thought of the idea of Carthaginian reforms
Before 256/255 B.C the Carthaginian main troops (poeni-libyan phalanx) fought and were armed in the style of the Greeks and syracusans (i.e 8-foot spear, hoplon shield etc.). But after the Roman Generals Vulso and Regulus landed near carthage in 256 B.C they realized that their carthaginian militia was not in good fighting shape so they hired a Spartan mercenary named Xanthippus. He reformed the Carthaginian phalanx military to fight in the Macedonian Phalangite style as opposed to the Greek Hoplite style. Yes I know their is the elite african phalanx but the reform wasnt limited to just the Elite troops but also the evryday groundpounder. That being said the Libyans still fought in the style of the theurorpi (bad spelling). But the main troops, phalanx troops, were reforemd as Hannibals carthaginian troops 40 years later still fought in the macedonian style.
Thats just my 2 cents...
How interesting.
I never realised Hannibal's rank-and-file were phalangists - I always thought they were "generic infantry" - i.e. armour, shield, sword.
I'm not involved in making the mod BTW - I only posted because I found out something new for myself :beam:
technically most of Hannibal's army was made of Celts, rebellious Italians and Iberian natives but his carthaginians were outfitted in and fought in the style of a Macedonian phalangite
I will say that the Punic phalangite matter is not without some controversy. :laugh4:
How diplomatic.:book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
At the moment I have a "dangerously mad" faction leader in my Romans game. Despite being dangerously mad, and over 90 years old, that does not stop him from being a consul and a blatant adulterer. And his wife is already dead for a couple of years as well.
Perhaps the adultery family of traits should have an age cap, or at least check for the death of the Mrs.?
I don't think the IsMarried conditional is smart enough to detect if the guy is a widow. Might be worth testing though.
Touche. But at least Peter Connolly (in Hannibal and the enemies of Rome) and Fritz Heichelheim (in A history of the Roman People)Quote:
I will say that the punoc phalangite matter is not without some controversy
coroborate this matter in their respective books.
Does he have an ancillary called "The best PR guy ever"?Quote:
Originally Posted by d'Arthez
Well, can being an adulterer/having mistresses etc. when you're over, say, 60 rely on being very Energetic? I'm talking about those "core" traits that are grouped in threes by the way.
Also, I have a suggestion:
Could you add little icons for spring and autumn? Because ATM there are 3 Vanilla sun icons and 1 Vanilla snowflake icon per year, so it's hard to tell which season you're in most of the time. IIRC Troy Total War changed the summer and winter icons in their mod, so it can be done, but I don't know about having 4 different ones.
You can change the icons but you cannot make different ones for different seasons other than 'summer' and 'winter'.
Some good suggestions here - sorry if mine are a little simplistic by comparison :embarassed: .
Basically I would like to see more playable factions at the expense of Eleutheroi cities and armies, so:
Gallic Factions
I don't think two are enough. What tends to happen in my games is one gets wiped out fairly early on, to be replaced by a Gallic super-state that lays waste to all and sundry.:wall:
Casse
Likewise, it would be nice to see a Caledoni faction and perhaps one other in the south of the British Isles; how about the Brigantes, with a power base in the midlands and north?
Numidia
I needn't remind such a knowledgeable group :2thumbsup: of Juba, Jugurtha and their chums!
Cyrene, Syracusai etc
Playing factions that start with single cities surrounded by hostile enemies would present an interesting challenge!
Roman Factions
Probably discussed elsewhere, but how do people in general (and EB team in particular) feel about this?
Problem is there is a limit to the number of factions the game engine allows and EB is at that limit. No factions can be added without dropping others. However, M2:TW allows the addition of 10 more factions, so EB2 will have a greated faction roster.
Shame!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
What about a tool to check your kills?
And something to make you a) list your cities alphabetically
b) list your generals who are in a town but not
that city's governors (to find them easier!)
And I would say that many of us would love it, if their was no limit to a character's ancillaries
Plus: How the hell can my generals get a triumph? I had someone like young Cotta who was a super-hero, a great vanquisher and so on, and squashed the Carthies in Sicily and Corsica and Sardinina, and I had that announcement that he needs to be proclaimed by the Legions to earn his triumph, and I went on winning battle after battle but he never made it to a triumph- what went wrong?
And, by the way, at certain points of history, my EB ctd over and over again - winter 199 bc for example, and I can't seem to find a way out of that, mind you, that's when I've already conquered a conspicuous part of Old Europe :)))
So I guess I'll give a try to SPQR whilst waiting for the new EB release.
In my opinion, EB is the greatest strategy game EVER!!!
PS: Being a Roman myself, I can't play another faction wholeheartedly :laugh4:
PPS: How are factions like Pontos and the Arabs meant to make it anywhere without enough dough?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man...
I'm not part of the mod, but I can help the last post:
There is already a "List" feature you can access by right clicking on the "Army, Buildings, Agents" tabs.
b) cannot be changed by EB as far as I know.
Earning a triumph in EB is extremely difficult: you have to be named Conqueror of... and Imperator. The first trait is easy, the second, nearly impossible. You should fight battles with the odds stacked against you, but you'll see that you need many such battles. For now, the trait is broken in EB. Until the next update, I guess.
The CTDs can maybe be solved if you ask the people at the appropriate forum, that is the Bug Reports forum.
we are currently looking into making triumphs easier, and adding more depth. Seeing as how there were TONS of triumphs over this foe and that foe, they shouldnt be as rare as they are currently.
What about a trait 'Undefeated'? Would be a nice thing to distinguish your greatest (luckiest) generals.
Wouldn't that make "newbie" Generals have an unrealistic advantage over a grizzled veteran who has lost maybe 3 out of 50 battles?
And TBH, wouldn't every General be Undefeated, seeing as people rarely lose battles, and just load and try again if they do lose? Please correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
How about if the trait would require "Seen the Elephant" trait?Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
What's that? Is that a real trait or were you joking?
Its a real trait.
Foot
not to be confused with the "Seen the Pink Elephant" trait.
Anyone who reloads after losing a battle must really not like to lose considering the long load times with EB...
Or have a shiny, powerful computer... Mine loads in about a minute, which is way, way better than before.
"Seen the Elephant" is the fifth trait after "Green", "Blooded", "Veteran" and "Grizzled". Requires the character to have lead gazillion battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
24 actually.
I see, so it has nothing to do with actual elephants (i.e. Carthaginians don't have any advantage when it comes to getting this trait)?
Also, what does the "Seen the Pink Elephant" trait, which Zaknafien mentioned, do?
No, it doesn't. It's just the highest level of the green/blooded/veteran/grizzled line of traits.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
Pink elephants? That's a sign of madness, that is.
:elephant: