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

Edit: Nevermind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSamatan

Actually the AI is quite modable in MTW2, that releases a big bunch of possbilities, and you can be sure that EB2 will use a lot of them. However, there are some facts that couldn't be broken by the community by now, so some of the big bugs of vanilla MTW2 that can be found in all of the mods will be found also in our mod if we can't get behind some behaviours.

---

I have little experience (although not in total war games) and much more interest in game AI development. If you have some problems I would be happy to review them. After some search I found the interactive tutorial for AI modding, but that doesn't quite offer the options I was trying to find. It's so frustrating in TW series when the AI can be easily beaten even in VH battles by simply choosing the battlefield and letting AI walk straight into the trap, which it always does. Battle tactics could also use some refinement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

The sotrylines aren't a good idea IMO. I don't like "missions". I like to play at my own speed and following my own choices.

---

"Missions" are a part of history. It's tricky to balance gameplay and historical detail. Of course it can't be too historical because it wouldn't allow any interaction. Then it would only be a story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

They already are...

Numidians, Spaniards, Illurians, Tracians, Gaul/Belgians weren't rubbish either in that department, but the Eastern cavalry beats them all...

---

in EB Pontics didnt have their own cavalry, I mean, Pontus must have their own cavalry and this cavalry unit must available only Pontus

Excuse me, I also think Micko is overreacting, BUT
people, who are treating every kind of critisism and complaining as childish, always go with the majority, idolise the EB Teams as gods and critisize people only based on their writing skills are also kind of douchebags themselves.
If people had ignored Micko or used some persuasion like ludens does, the whole thing wouldnt have become such an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scutum

"Missions" are a part of history. It's tricky to balance gameplay and historical detail. Of course it can't be too historical because it wouldn't allow any interaction. Then it would only be a story.

---

What do you mean by a story?

The game is all about creating your own history starting from 272BC, not recreating history as it really happened (which would be impossible with the engine and kinda hit the replay value rather hard).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pontic Knight

in EB Pontics didnt have their own cavalry, I mean, Pontus must have their own cavalry and this cavalry unit must available only Pontus

---

In EB Pontos could recruit lots of cavalry units in its provinces. You can be sure those recruited in Pontus consisted out of locally breed horses and Pontic riders.


Of course, other faction that may conquer Pontos can also recruit those same horses and riders...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

Excuse me, I also think Micko is overreacting, BUT
people, who are treating every kind of critisism and complaining as childish, always go with the majority, idolise the EB Teams as gods and critisize people only based on their writing skills are also kind of douchebags themselves.

---

Agreed. As long as the critism is based on something and one doesn't automatically conclude it must have been an oversight, an inconsistence or just plain stupidity to come to another conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

What do you mean by a story?

---

Story is a common term for a description of a sequence of events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

Game is all about creating your own history starting from 272BC, not recreating history as it really happened (which would be impossible with the engine and kinda hit the replay value rather hard).

---

Which makes me wonder what it means when a game is called historical.

The hope of EB is that you are given an historical jumping-off point of 272 BC. Everything that happens after that is up to you. We do not, and never have, stated that EB is a history-on-rails game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

The hope of EB is that you are given an historical jumping-off point of 272 BC. Everything that happens after that is up to you. We do not, and never have, stated that EB is a history-on-rails game.

---

Exactly. However, the reforms do intervene with this policy. When events change for example Marian may never exist and thus eliminating Marian reforms. Even if reforms ever take place the uniforms, weaponry, banners, symbols etc most likely would be different.

We believe that there are certain factors driving events. We call the Marian reforms that name because it is a convention everyone understands, but something similar would have likely happened regardless as long as Rome continued to expand. The adoption of the thureos was pretty much a foregone conclusion by our game start. There are certain caveats, of course, but as far as we are concerned, the game is quite historical.

This is not correct IMHO. The reforms as they are represented in EB are 'pictures' of what would happen if an empire would expand in a certain way. If you expand in other ways, build i.e. not the required buildings then the reform won't take place or takes place a later time, when you got too much provinces to get all your army from Italy itself for the Romans as example. So the reforms are a optional feature and not a must. However this is EB1 thema and should be discussed there, the reforms in EB2 are depicted in the previews.

XSamatan

Does this mean that EBII has different options/versions of reformed units?

We have limited resources. We can't make different reformed units for every possible permutation. Then again, how many different possibilities could there be? I don't think anyone on the team would seriously consider a hoplite reform for Celtic factions if a Koinon Hellenon player was particularly successful in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

We have limited resources. We can't make different reformed units for every possible permutation. Then again, how many different possibilities could there be? I don't think anyone on the team would seriously consider a hoplite reform for Celtic factions if a Koinon Hellenon player was particularly successful in Europe.

---

Only one thing is certain. No one can predict the future. Unless you believe in destiny and that everything is predetermined. However, I understand you point of view. My point was that you are imposing fixed elements after 272 BC and adding missions won't do more damage to the players timeline. One doesn't have to complete missions even in the original game. Historically especially later Rome was torn by internal conflicts and maybe that could be portrayed in some way. Like the senate could assassinate a general or forbid him from doing something etc.

No, that is fair enough and I'm glad that you understand. Missions are something that we haven't discussed; however, there are some clear possibilities. Only problem is how to execute it. As the player, you are the king, you are the chieftan, you are the senate. There isn't an external entity guiding you: you are the state. We could try to use missions to show certain objectives that need to be obtained that always would be (e.g. Alexander's grave), but it's still needs to be decided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

No, that is fair enough and I'm glad that you understand. Missions are something that we haven't discussed; however, there are some clear possibilities. Only problem is how to execute it. As the player, you are the king, you are the chieftan, you are the senate. There isn't an external entity guiding you: you are the state. We could try to use missions to show certain objectives that need to be obtained that always would be (e.g. Alexander's grave), but it's still needs to be decided.

---

The problem is that a successful general is no threat to the player. The general can't depose the player/senate. Player would need some motive for actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scutum

The problem is that a successful general is no threat to the player. The general can't depose the player/senate. Player would need some motive for actions.

---

There are two kinds of EB players I see here.

The one kind plays to win and want to create the best generals and so on.

The other kind role plays more, and does what those generals themselves would do (based on their traits). They create their own motives... their own story as you like to call it.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. I don't see how a successful general dictates the needs for missions. If you mean as a usurper from within the players own faction, that is as much a possibility through the loyalty mechanic as it is a limitation of the TW engine.

I've removed the trolling posts, but I've left the responses because others took up the discussion.

For the record: I think Foot responded too harshly to some ill-judged comments. That said: this forum is the home of EB, and people should be respectful of the team and their work. If you think the EB team is wrong, you can say so, but please be polite about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. I don't see how a successful general dictates the needs for missions.

---

It was just one example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pontic Knight

in EB Pontics didnt have their own cavalry, I mean, Pontus must have their own cavalry and this cavalry unit must available only Pontus

---

My guess would be that at the beginning of the third century BC, Pontos didn't really have an "own" cavalry force, but the same as in the last days of the Achaemenid Empire. Which means the exra-heavies were Persians, as they were the ruling nobility, while the mediums and lights were Galatians, Anatolians, Pontic Greeks and later Scythians too. Though I have to admit this setup probably changed in the later periods (adopting the Successors-like cavalry), and that is missing from EB I in my opinion too.

On topic, I would like to see "fixed" morale stats at the Pontic elites (Chalkaspides, Pontikoi Thorakitai), because the 13 is just too low compared to the other units in the same class. When I wrote my paper about the Mithridatic Wars I focused on the politics more than on the actual battles, but I think the defeats against the SPQR don't prove that these guys were more likely to rout and were bad quality soldiers than the "others". Also the Pontic numbers were obviously exaggerated by the Romans and I'm sure none believes that at Chaeronea Sulla lost only 13 men, while Archelaus lost over 100 000. But If I'm wrong, then I would like to ask an EB member to explain me the reason behind the low morale. Thanks.

I don't know about morale, but Watchman mentioned that the Pontic Thorakitai had been given lower stats than intended, and the Chalkaspides are in for an overhaul in EB2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pontic Knight

in EB Pontics didnt have their own cavalry, I mean, Pontus must have their own cavalry and this cavalry unit must available only Pontus

---

It would be good if you argued why you think that is, instead of just saying "it must".
That said, Pontos has Cappadoccian Cavalry in EBI that I haven't seen with any other faction. Maybe we'll see more in EBII...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I don't know about morale, but Watchman mentioned that the Pontic Thorakitai had been given lower stats than intended, and the Chalkaspides are in for an overhaul in EB2.

---

Yes, Watchman had a fix for Pontikoi Thorakitai (though, with that they were still inferior to anything which was heavier than a Thuerophoroi), and maybe I'm wrong, but I thought they were intended to be a near-elite/elite unit, which means the 13 morale is low. I'm glad the Chalkaspides is getting an overhaul in EB2.

Edit: And the cost between a Thureophoroi and a fixed Pontikoi Thorakitai is over 500 mnai.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Pyrrhos

Wow. I didn't want my innocent post at the top of the page 4 to create random arguments and silly accusations. I just wanted to note that fast units, if the EB team thinks so, should be made sure to be given the fast_moving attribute when the time comes....so that there is more variety of uses for units, or more differences in how they're used. I meant only the best intentions to note something and try to improve upon something that was perhaps missing in EB1. :book:

---

Fast moving isn't a attribute like hardy or good vs. cavalry. IIRC it depends on the movement-animation the unit uses. In EB I there already were several different unit speeds. The faster ones are characterised by the fast moving "attribute" ingame. Though there are different speeds in this two groups of units e.g. the fast moving Thessalian cavalry is not as fast as the horse archers of the nomads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pontic Knight

in EB Pontics didnt have their own cavalry, I mean, Pontus must have their own cavalry and this cavalry unit must available only Pontus

---

If I am not mistaken, I remember an EB member's post stating that the team had found new evidence for a faction-specific heavy cavalry unit for Pontos. It was a while ago though and I can't find the exact post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

Yes, Watchman had a fix for Pontikoi Thorakitai (though, with that they were still inferior to anything which was heavier than a Thuerophoroi), and maybe I'm wrong, but I thought they were intended to be a near-elite/elite unit, which means the 13 morale is low. I'm glad the Chalkaspides is getting an overhaul in EB2.

Edit: And the cost between a Thureophoroi and a fixed Pontikoi Thorakitai is over 500 mnai.

---

They used to be known as Pontic Elite Inf (who knows?) but now Heavy Inf. So 13 is pretty great morale stat. Any more and you'd be :juggle2: all day long. For the tournament you play in (and you play as Pontos), the Pontikoi Thorakitai have 0.13 lethality swords as opposed to the former 0.1. And they have some other changes to their javelin attack and range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

They used to be known as Pontic Elite Inf (who knows?) but now Heavy Inf. So 13 is pretty great morale stat. Any more and you'd be :juggle2: all day long. For the tournament you play in (and you play as Pontos), the Pontikoi Thorakitai have 0.13 lethality swords as opposed to the former 0.1. And they have some other changes to their javelin attack and range.

---

What we should know here is their role. Are they a near-elite/elite unit or just a "regular" one? And the fixed stats made them a bit better, but as I commented in the previous post, they are still useless. Paying almost 2k mnai for a unit which can barely handle regular light infantry (without AP) and light spearmen is just a waste of mnai, in my opinion.

Edit: So we need an EB team member who can help and enlighten us in the matter. *Tries to summon one of them with conjuration magic.*

Edit2: Ahh, edited the first sentence, I missunderstood your sentences. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rahl

Fast moving isn't a attribute like hardy or good vs. cavalry. IIRC it depends on the movement-animation the unit uses. In EB I there already were several different unit speeds. The faster ones are characterised by the fast moving "attribute" ingame. Though there are different speeds in this two groups of units e.g. the fast moving Thessalian cavalry is not as fast as the horse archers of the nomads.

---

Yes indeed, but if you had read my first post earlier, then you would know I've already said that it is unit-model related. Otherwise, I'd just mosey on into the EDU and wrangle me up some fast movin' thureo-fast-oi. :book:

But its all good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

What we should know here is their role. Are they a near-elite/elite unit or just a "regular" one?

---

Why would they be elite? They don't look like elite units to me, and AFAIK they were intended to replace the old-fashioned phalangite armies, suggesting they made up the rank-and-file.