Printable View
Indeed I was thinking about having it require the 'seen the elephants' trait.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
I don't know about other people but every ten or so battles I have at least one defeat. Perhaps it's because I'm not an excellent tactician, or perhaps because I just don't load a stack full of Pedites Extraordinarii or the like and retrain them all the time. And reloading battles sounds a rather flimsy practice to me. What's the fun of winning all the time?
There should be some trait that gives the character the name "Megas", if there isn't already. "Undefeated" might be an appropriate one. Although I'm not going to buy a Sweboz family member named "Hâlwarzórgõrzkürìtâtzkêgrãzkoz Megas".
That means he's drunk that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
This is going to be a bit vague, so bear with me.
There's a certain trait, something to do with being "Introverted". The description says something along the lines of "Rarely appears in public, and is considered something of a mythical figure to those who know of his existance. When he does deign it right to speak in public, his words carry the power of omen's. But being rarely seen, it makes it hard for him to be an effective governor or commander."
Unfortunately, all the bonus' for that trait are negative. I think it should at least award something like an influence bonus, due to the 'mythical figure' status, and 'omen' words.
What about when playing as Romani, when you destroy a faction you get to build a Triumphal Arch in Rome (or your capital, anyway)? They might only be available to build for a year after the faction is destroyed (as people will forget about the victory and won't care after that), is expensive, takes a long time to build but on the other hand increases happiness and loyalty, as well as giving the current ruler some nice traits.
Or you could have a system whereby you could choose out of building a more expensive arch or cheaper Triumphal Column (which, on the other hand, grants worse bonuses) each time you destroy a faction.
@Ravenic: you meant the "Hermit" trait? Well, truth be told: the description and the trait bonuses as intended simply don't match.
I believe it's meant to depict someone in a position of power, who doesn't show his face on any political meeting whatsoever... He doesn't influence any decision, 'cause he's never there when it is made; he doesn't influence the public, 'cause he doesn't care. Mythical figure or not, he's not taken into consideration / or the idea of asking him for his opinion is discarded, because of his habit of not going public.
Well, that trait reminds me of something the Team could add.
Machiavelico: this trait would give influence and management to a general... I believe no one needs a description ;)
Cheers...
except it has nothing to do with our time period..
Actually it has. It would not be unusual to a weaker ruller to see his actions governed by his advisors or more influent nobles.
Cheers...
...but the name would have to be changed.
And we already got that one in: he's called the Poweful Advisor IIRC. Or was it Powerful Supervisor ? :inquisitive: Anyway, there's no need to include a similar hanger on anymore, is there?
Didn't know that...
Cheers...
Does anyone like my idea? :beam:
We cannot limit building availability to a certain year or tie it to a certain event like a victory or destruction of another faction. Sorry.
Will you reduce the effectiveness of phalanx units when fighting with secondary weapons? Currently, they cause very big casualties even when surrounded and not fighting with sarissas at all. I like the fact that they don't rout so easily as in RTW Vanilla (and that they are deadly in frontal attack), but they are far too effective in really close combat IMO.
I think anything better than Deuteroi should fare pretty well with a sword as well. Most of them are heavily armored as well, which obviously lets them last a ton of punishment, usually enough to sent medium units running.
These are the guys who took Persia, heh, I think they should be tough.
It depends on what units you mean. Really.
Pantodapoi Phalangitai don't hurt to bad except from the front. Kelourchikoi aren't that badass either - these are regulars, don't forget that. Phalangitai Deuteroi are practically the same soldiers - only their social position is a tad different, but even though any differences their gear amounts to pretty much the same.
Pezhetairoi, now, they are a different class. You could compare them to Principes with very large pointy sticks - and that's precisely the type of soldier they represent, a Greek middle or higher class property owner who's got voting rights. Then you've got Argyraspidai: but now we're onto highly experienced veterans who've seen their share of action, and who could afford Thorakitai style equipment - but simply prefer the cheaper way of reinforcing their old Pezhetairos/ Kleruchikos gear.
EDIT: Oh, and not to forget that Phalangitai are in our time frame the nucleus of an army, designed not to rout but to withstand anything - till the support troops have broken the spent enemy. And to do that, you'd need to be quite an adept close combat fighter not just an able pikeman.
But in what class should the mercenary phalangites fit in? Strength-wise right now they seem closer to pezhetairoi. Correct me if I'm wrong but they do seem a bit too much (in relation to their abundance I mean).
If you listen to what they shout back when you select the unit... it turns out they are Misthophoroi Pezhetairoi. So yeah, I suppose they've got the same stats as the Factional Pezhetairoi...
I was thinking of the difficulty in close combat fighting in phalanx formation (not much room there...) and the representation of the fact that once there are wholes in the "wall of spears" or the formation is surrounded, it's much easier to break them. No, they shouldn't be totally useless with secondary weapons, but maybe a little bit worse than the other units with comparable equipment?
Oh, and BTW, it's realistic, fun and challenging to face phalanx-based armies and search for ways to beat them with Hayasdan. Hellenic unit superiority is well represented (although I really admire Kavakaza Sparabara - so cheap and so easy to get, and yet so useful and versatile). Good job~:) .
I don't know if this has been suggested before, so my apologies if it has.
I suggest creating another character trait for Roman generals called "Spolia Opima", acquired when a Roman general's unit kills the enemy general in combat.
Historically, the Spolia Opima, or Rich Spoils/Spoils from the General, were claimed by one General who killed the other, usually in single combat. They were traditionally dedicated in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius at Rome. Winning this honour made the man legendary, and so I think the character trait should read as follows:
Spolia Opima - This man has killed an enemy general in combat, and despoiled him. It makes him famous. (+2 Influence, +1 Troop morale on the battlefield, +1 Hitpoints your general can take before dying)
I really hope to see you guys use this one, as it will add to the historical accuracy you've tried so hard to maintain.
That was only awarded when one general killed another in single combat though, and as such only awarded three times in the history of Rome. But, it's rather hard to make two general's actually trade blows with their hundreds of guardsmen running around, I myself have only seen it maybe twice.
As such, you couldn't script something like that. You could maybe make it so that killing the general with the general's bodyguard unit in general could count. But I doubt it's possible to go into as much detail as would be needed, Andersao.
Exactly.
Here are some suggestions inspired by your absolutely gob-smackingly amazing July preview ...
1. Edge of the map suggestions:
I *Love* the new trade buildings that simulate 'edge of the map' interactions. Maybe even more can be done in this area, particularly around the borders with India and the steppes. For example, (a) scripted incursions from the Mauryas or appropriate steppe factions either tied to triggers or at a certain low but random frequency, (b) Special 'embassies' from the Mauryas or other 'off-the-map' kingdoms that offer gifts (elephants??) or marital alliances that boost trade (c) Some events which are just for pure 'flavour' (e.g. an emassy from the Pandya kingdoms in South India which was a key player in the spice route ... i've seen the results of excavations at Arikamedu in S.India which turned up huge amounts of Roman coins dating to the BCE/CE divide). (d) Another idea is to grant trading bonsuses with off-the-map Buddhist kingdoms if Baktrian kings signficiantly patronise Buddhism. This would be modeled after Menander who was immortalised in the Buddhist pali/prakrit canon through the Milinda Panha (Conversations of Menander), and whose remains were buried in a Stupa.
2. Unrest as a 'disaster'
I've posted already on unrest in the 'succession' thread, but a slightly different take would be to model waves of unrest and rebellion as a 'disaster' that was either tied to events (e.g. faction leader death) or at random intervals of a generation or two in provinces that were unrest prone (historically, many provinces did tend to rebel a generation or two after conquest). The effects of the disaster could be simulated by placement of Eleutheroi spies/diplomats/assasins in the province.
3. Carthaginian flavour
I'm a big fan of this faction. Is there a way messages/events can be triggered when (a) Carthage recaptures its home city of Tyre/Tsor, and (b) Carthage conducts 'great journeys of exploration' to Africa, the North Sea or beyond. This could be implemented by (i) tying messages to capture of certain provinces in Africa or Britain, or (ii) implementing an 'exploration' mission for Carthaginian family members in a way similar to the Olympics for the Greeks.
I'm not sure if any of this is possible, or will catch the interest of the team, or meet standards of historical accuracy. However, I will go one better than just throwing suggestions out by offering my help to implement any of these. I'm convalescing, and have a couple of months off from work, and am already trying to help the team with the Pahlav voice mod (working with 'Persian Cataphract'). I would be certainly willing to do more (including any voice-mod work on Baktria!).
Cheers.
I would also love to see more messages when regions are conquered, such as the 'Subiugator Athenarum' trait, for instance. I'm fond of these things.
There's something in game already which - essentially - covers the suggestion already. :grin: It will be extended. I am not going to say what it is, but if you think you've thought it out - and you feel certain about it - then please don't say a thing either. (I believe it has been announced already, but I'm not sure of this and others have the 'privilege' of doing official announcements & previews anyway.) All Betatesters, let's keep it a surprise no? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurius Brontosaurus
Well, let's say disastrous flares of unrest are being looked into... ~;) Especially the field of "how to make it work".Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurius Brontosaurus
Hmm I must say that method (ii) doesn't appeal to me: a real exploration mission just doesn't convince if characters only receive a one time trait (without much consequences really). However, there's something with bringing the burials of Alexander the Great back to the royal tombs in Makedonia. Perhaps something along the lines could be done - though I wouldn't know for sure, since I am no coder.Quote:
3. Carthaginian flavour
I'm a big fan of this faction. Is there a way messages/events can be triggered when (a) Carthage recaptures its home city of Tyre/Tsor, and (b) Carthage conducts 'great journeys of exploration' to Africa, the North Sea or beyond. This could be implemented by (i) tying messages to capture of certain provinces in Africa or Britain, or (ii) implementing an 'exploration' mission for Carthaginian family members in a way similar to the Olympics for the Greeks.
That's always good to hear! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurius Brontosaurus
Well, in the meanwhile between now and EB X, I suggest you try some Hellenic factions. They've got plenty of said traits. (Thanks to Strabo.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Swordmaster
About the exploration missions, could you do an Agoge-type thing (or, at least, from what I can tell from the previews) where a family member in a ship docked in a player-owned port in North Africa gets the chance to, say, sail round the horn of Africa or to India or something. They'd have to sail to the right square on the edge of the map and then would be moved off the map for a reasonable number of turns, and then be moved back onto the map with a suitable trait. There would always be the chance they would never come back, of course.
Incidentally, I thought this might be similar to the Agoge because of all the precise moving around you'd have to do.
Not possible as far as I can tell. There's no way to remove a character and to come up with said character again after a turn or 20 or so...
is there any posibility of including the Cantabrian Axe warriors who were quoted by the romans writters?
thx a lot for this awesome mod :yes:
Hehe. :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by caetrati
Just a quick couple of ideas, I would imagine what you'd need to change would be hardcoded but worth a try I suppose :beam:
Firstly, is there anyway to choose which unit in a general-less army the captain is assigned to? It's a pain having your army's commander ploughing in with the assault infantry and getting hacked to pieces :wall:
Secondly, is there any chance of making units "upgradable"? I don't mean in terms of experience, weapons etc, but in actual loadout. After fighting off the romani over several years I've got several units of silver+ chevron units of levy hoplites, wouldn't it be nice for all those hardened veterans to be sent back to Sparta and reequipped as proper hoplites? :D
As I said definitely a long shot but y'know, don't ask don't get :2thumbsup:
Yes, there is a possibility. You'll just have to hang on to get any more information than a confirmation that there is a possibility though. :jarswim:Quote:
Originally Posted by caetrati
Suggestions:
1. The recommended difficulty. I suggest you make it to H/M. The AI diplomacy is ridicules at VH-settnings, much worse then on H in my opinion. And on H-settings the AI dont go after the human player at such a ridicules degree. You can actually have peace once in a while.
Why VH? Whats the point btw? Just because the repels attack more often? Its no fun to have your cities sieged by random placed repel stacks from tin air every second turn anyway.
Better AI diplomacy > Aggresive repels
What do you think?
2. Balanced AI stacks. Its a game breaker. Its called Total War, every battle should be a blast. I would rather have you go nuts with the unit costs then having all these slinger-, merc- or elite armies. I dont care about the unit cost as long as the AI stacks is balanced and (kinda) HISTORICAL. (I recommend the Principes to be little cheaper, the Hasati much cheaper, the triarii more expensive and all the italian troops should also be much more expensive. This I think would make the AI roman faction more balanced)
One way to help this would maybe be to have a script place one lvl barrack upgrade at every AI city. This way the AI have a bigger roster of units to select from, and maybe (together with the altered unit cost) she will start building more mixed and balanced armies.
I dont know if you ever thought about this but maybe you could make the Casse faction, with help of the BI engine, an "appearing faction". If I remember correctly you could chose the date they would appear and the game would play on "autopilot" until you, the casse faction, appears. This would easily and quickly let you "travel in time" and look at the AI progress, with just the klick of a botton! When you are happy with the Ai progress, you simply take the "appear-thingy" from the casse faction. Do you follow me?!? :clown: :smash: :wall: :wall:
Please at least consider my suggestions.
Hope I didnt come out harsh against the mod. You know I love it. :sweatdrop: :beam:
(Uhm sry about the spelling, grammer. I blame it on the wine!)
First- The game autochooses the best unit or the first unit if they are all similar. Put the unit you want to lead in the first slot and there is a greater chance that the Captain will be in that group. Of course the EB stat system seems to confuse this whole thing. Just have your armies lead by a General.Quote:
Originally Posted by overweightninja
Second- Impossible. Hardcoded. :skull:
1- On VH the AI also gets a larger monitary bonus. And the rebels are usually invading nations too small for a faction slot. They should be a problem. The guys that just pop up are people angered by they way you are ruling them and wish to overthrow your rule, so it is good they cause you problems. Lower taxes and they will be less frequent. If you wish to play on M/H feel free to do so. I usually don't play M/VH, unless I'm a powerhouse like the Romans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovejoy
2- The AI buys the cheap units because they are having money problems. If a faction becomes rich, they will start training elites. It is just something that the game annoyingly does for poor factions. Balancing cost/effect is a constant process and not always perfect.
3?- I'm pretty sure that the autopilot thing is a M2TW feature and still requires some programming. If you want to see if it works for testing purposes, try it out and tell us if it works in RTW:BI...
Agh I was afraid of that, nvm, thanks for the tips anyway.
Oh and btw, i feel all ashamed i didnt say in my first post, great work EB people love it! :laugh4:
Would it be possible to add a fifth government type, "Independent State", that is not buildable and will be set in Eleutheroi starting settlements only? It would work like regular governments, but wouldn't allow much building options. That way independent settlements wouldn't build their infrastructure faster than "real" factions and eleutheroi won't spend all their money on building.
Doesn't work. We can't place many buildings in rebel settlements because it just comes up looking like a roman barracks. Nothing to be done. Anyway, we made it so that almost all buildings can only be built with a government in place, so places without governments will need to invest in them first before they can build most other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaatu
Foot
But don't all the eleutheroi settlements have governments in place already? If those governments would be replaced with a new type, which restricts some buildings (roads, walls, high tier buildings, etc.) the way type IV does..? Wouldn't need more building slots or anything, just the one new government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaatu
Eleutheroi cities like Syracuse and Pergamon would hardly qualify for such restrictions I would think. Not to mention the cities in India.
As the Eleutheroi could (as an alternative history) have developed differently than in history, such a government may even further limit the capability of (a subgroup of) the Eleutheroi to develop their own independent civilization. The latter is of course a bit of a roleplaying issue, and not a real threat to an established faction.
Is it actually possible to set the amount of Mnai a faction has, by means of the background script (not just adding or substracting, but setting it at a certain specific value)?
As for presetting the amount of Mnai a faction has at the game's start: there's descr_strat.
AFAIK: it is possible to check whether a faction has a certain amount of money, and should that amount drop below or exceed a certain limit have the script act accordingly. Perhaps not as accurate as to achieve always the same exact figure no matter what financial situation said faction would be in, but still it is more or less possible.
For the fun of it I played an blitzgame with the Romans (Marians kicked in in 242 BC), with some altered money scripts, so the Eleutheroi actually could build units and city improvements. They do that quite well.
Most of the money was spent on things like temples, mines and sometimes barracks (despite the shortlived independence). I get the impression that the improvements are not more or less randomly made to the cities, but that a few cities improve a lot, and most of them did not. Likewise, only a few cities bothered to build more units - and these were not near the Roman Red, but in Sulek and in Arabian peninsula. Thus severely stunting Saba.
Which makes me wonder why the Eleutheroi choose to build quite a few mines in Central Europe, but most of their units in these non-developing places?
While I don't expect all cities to develop equally, I would expect that those cities which do develop to improve their respective garrisons over time.
Is it possible to script that upon completion of say a gold mine, an Eleutheroi city gains a unit in the garrison of that city?
Ok, I checked it out and eleutheroi settlements don't have governments as a default. However they do build them themselves. Wouldn't it be better that the government won't be random, depending on which button the rebels push, but that it would be predetermined? The fifth government type would also remove the exploit that you just repair the eleutheroi put government, if it happens to be of the same culture. Some of the more powerful independents could be given a factional government, like Syracusa and Pergamon. This way, for example, central European rebels wouldn't build extensive road systems and coastal settlements won't build advanced trading ports.
Foot, do you mean that there's a limit to how many buildings can be placed in a rebel settlement, or is the limit to the rebel faction as a whole?
The problem with placing governments at the beginning is that they would all be Western Greek in appearance and description. And that wouldn't make since in most parts of the map.
Would work for greek city states. All settlements don't have to have governments, just the most secluded ones and maybe the most powerful Greek ones. Imagine this:Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
- Syracusa, a powerful city, government type II, a colony.
- Same with Pergamon.
- Kydonia, not so much, type III or IV.
Government type V, restrictions in roads, health bonus buildings (to prevent the towns from booming) and advanced trading ports (as very few settlements had the wealth for these):
- Olbia, in Scythia. They weren't much into building roads, and while the town itself might represent a greek colony, the province itself is under nomadic hands.
- The same for other nomad settlements.
- Most settlements east of the Alps to the Black Sea. Not many roads fit for military transportation.
- Maybe Arabian provinces too.
- I think you have more imagination than I have.
Just giving governments to Greek rebels wouldn't be fair or accurate.
I once suggested having a rebel only government (somewhere between 2 and 3, was my idea), but nobody liked the idea.
Weeell, while it may be fair that the world has no governments in 272 BCE, it certainly isn't accurate. It has nothing to do with fairness. Other rebel settlements will still build them in a few years. At the moment Syracusa, for example, will get either type II, III or IV by pure chance. That affects how well developed the city gets. But the western greek governments for advanced states isn't the point. The point is the type V.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Hey, back me up on this then, though my suggestion is for the backwater towns and such, not a generic rebel government. I think nobony also likes the central and eastern European road system built by the mysterious "coalition of tribes" for no apparent reason, or the extensive trading ports of Scandinavia.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
True to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaatu
Is it determined by the order in which the Eleutheroi cities are created?
Is it due to the fact that all Eleutheroi are part of the same faction, and consequently the same ethnicity, that you can only place Western Greek government buildings in their settlements?
No, you can set different cultures for each settlement. The problem is that when a building has complicated requirements in order to be built (specifically the 'not' command) then the system will be confused unexplainably and make the building 'Western Greek'. Some buildings that don't have equivalents in other factions can just have their pictures and descriptions transfered to 'Western Greek' culture (such as the Celtic Reform building that is present as the beginning of the game), but since governments are available to all cultures there is no way of not seeing the Greek descriptions, etc.
Ignore
Here are couple of suggestions and ideas I've had for a while but haven't had the energy to post.
In RTW when character "comes of age" he is a clean slate, fresly risen from the spawning pool of "childhood". From this primordial state the character can develope in any direction. In EB every character has basic traits like ethnicities and the like, which makes the character more like a real person less like a programmable robot. One problem still prevails: that character has not done anything for the past 16 years, exept herited certain traits in his birth. What EB is still lacking is those first 16 years of someones life. How did he fare in school or did he go to one? Did he have a happy childhood or not? Did he travel the world with his father or did he stay home with his mother? Stuff like that would make the characters of EB even more life like by giving them history.
Ability to read and write was not as self-explanatory in the ancient times as it is nowadays. I think EB should portray this in a trait, so that characters could be illiterate.
Other thing that just occured to me, what about scripted starting armies for the AI. It would of course be a laborious to do, but as a benefit human player don't have to go on a conquering spree or disband, while the AI still has enough forces to hold the human player back.
Ok, there's my :2cents:
Good suggestions, I like them.
Foot
For the growing up traits, I think registering the exploits of the father would be possible, but very complex. A lot of the things you mention could be randomly assigned and would be easier. I'd like to have both in the game at some point.
Illiteracy was the norm rather than the exception, I would think. Literacy traits would be nice.
We will probably not do the scripted standing armies, as we are pursuing another scripted alternative concerning eleutheroi to make it harder for the human to expand. I think it's a good thing that the player can choose to conquer or disband.
Atm I am playing Sweboz, what I think they might lack is more puplic order buildings, as distance to capital is hardcoded it is very hard to expand far with the Sweboz. Also I see I have an Alehouse in my starting capital but don't seem to be able to build it anywhere.
I think the max pulic order buildings give is 60%, all built and that is with the temple that give most public order boost and with the goverment that gives the most public order. But as 20% of the pulblic order bonus is due to health buildings most of it will be lost to squalor later on.
Just wondering if its possible to give AI cities the appropriate government house when they reach the required population... because in my current campaign im coming across many cities that have populations of 10k++ in that are on the lowest town level. I think Rome had about 20k people when i took it, and was only a small city.
The reason its a problem is because its impossible to take the city without putting everyone to the sword, due to the enenormous squalor penalty that you get hit with otherwise. I only have one general who is selfish, and therefore can massacre cities without going crazy from remorse, so I basically have to use this guy all the time to siege any big cities, even though I have better generals.
Also I've noticed that my generals, even the ones who are vigourous, seem to get the 'forced marching' trait extremely often, even though I never use all their movement points when travelling. I usually move them one or two steps shorter than their limit. Am I doing something wrong? I'm really noticing this alot more playing as the Arverni than when I was playing as the Romans.
I know what you are talking about and it is annoying. This is due to the fact that the AI will spend all their money on military and if there is some left over, they will build buildings. Usually, there isn't anything left over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dram
Scripting core buildings in would be a bad idea even if it was possible. When a building is added via the script, it does not replace the current one. If palace buildings were added via the script I bet the game would crash, or just have two palaces and not change in city level.
Concerning forced marching: Leaving a few movement spaces at the end of the turn should keep that from happening. :shrug:
Factions with generals on foot will have a harder time with forced marching.
I've planned to correct this for quite a while, but keep forgetting about it.
@NightStar:
there's a solution for this Alehouse-problem on this page: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=79720&page=3
After several barbarian campaigns I had this idea (not very elaborated though):
Both celtic and germanic tribes attempted to migrate south in EB's time-frame. So what about a building that represents a sucessful migration?
This building should be quite expensive and take a long time to build (something like these extensive port upgrades), it could provide a public order bonus, perhaps a bonus on farming income, but most import it could - similar to some nomadic buildings - allow the recruitment of basic factional units (spearmen, swordsman - no elites though) in a conquered region. This building should probably be tied to some reform (so that it's available at an appropriate time) and be available in Italy, Illyria, Northern Greece, perhaps Asia Minor for the Celts or Gaul for the Sweboz, the Black Sea region maybe - in areas where Celtic and Germanic tribes historically tried to settle down. This is not meant to offer a vanilla-like recruitment, but to represent something along the lines of "what if the Cimbri and Teutones had settled in Pannonia". I know most of these migrations weren't very sucessful, but on the other hand - Hayasdan never recreated the Achaemenid Empire as it is possible with the recently previewed reforms.
Perhaps this could also be extended to a complex of buildings, I don't know how much this would stress the building limits.
Spy suggestion:
Change "Spy Guild Master" trait for spies in faction's settlement to "Police Cheif" or appropriate name. Would represent how having high subterfuge of an agent allows a higher chance of finding enemy spies that cause unrest.
How? Policing is overt work. These guys work in the shadows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberius Victor
IIRC: Spy guild master is more like he has tons of sources to keep track of nasty inquiring individuals who want to know why the taxes have been raised yet again, and what sources the money came from which the local governor used to pay for his extravagant party last week. As a side effect he is able to track down enemy agents more often, but that's not his primary goal.
I think that would be a GREAT Idea! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_again
Have you guys had a look at this thread? I think that guy might really be onto something - maybe you should incorporate his minimod into the next release of EB?
Hey guys quick question and might be a stupid one as I have no experience playing this mod, only the desire to do so. How come you guys haven't modded the BI campaign to make use of such things like night battles or have you done that in this mod anyway? Just a quick question hope it isn't too stupid.
It was decided a long time ago that EB would never require the BI expansion. Because there are many people out there who don't own BI, EB has stayed on RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpartanPhalanx
First time Ive checked in here in a while; there's some good suggestions around! As for the literacy traits, we've been concepting something similar to this inside the Roman faction vaults for the past few months, but havent had the time to flesh it out really.
Having literacy traits just fleshes it out more--basically, we want to portray if the character is literate or not, and to what level he uses this skill if he has it. Everyone knows that Caesar was a prolific letter writer for example, so I've been concepting a few traits to portray this in the game. The highest level being "Scriptor Annales", which means the character actually writes annals of his exploits to send back to Rome, brining both fame and influence among the proletarii.
I have an idea for a new ancillary, I'm already implementing it on my VBM/RTW game.
When character comes of age, there is a small chance he gets a "Childhood friend"... nothing fancy for now, the trick is that there are two kinds of ancillaries under the same name; "childhood_friend" and "childhood_friend_2".
The first one gives +2 personal security, the other one gives -2 personal security.
Of course, ingame, both have the same description.
hi everyone. i am new on this thing. i really like this mod a lot. the map is a lot more bigger and includes more factions. but i was kinda disappointed with dipiction of the land across the red sea to be more specific northern ethiopia. i was hoping that for the coming mod they would include the faction "Kingdom of Aksum", it was a powerfull and rich empire which had a lot of influence across the red sea, southern egypt and sudan. it also had many wonders including the "Aksum obelisk". you can find out a lot more about the empire on wikipedia
this is the only request i have. other than that the game is just perfect
All hardcoded faction slots for EB1 are full. For EB2, there will be more slots available, but a Nubian or Eithiopian faction probably won't make it into EB2, either. They weren't relatively powerful or expansionistic. Plus, they would have wanted to expand south too, and the map edge stops them from interacting with that area.
See the EB2 forums for new faction discussions, such as Nubia and Eithiopia.
Land bridge across English Channel to involve Casse in mainland expansion and cause human player to actually worry about invasion from mainland. Probably been brought up before and not included for good reasons. Worth a shot but.
Could be for a mini-mod. Shouldn't be too hard to accomplish, but there's a simple reason why not to implement into main EB: Casse weren't involved in mainland expansion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberius Victor
And landbridges represent straits which were easy to cross without having to resort to largescale efforts, as represented by using fleets in EB; view it as using local boats to paddle across or something like that. The English Channel was not such an area.
while talking about the Casse, i thought that another british faction should be there, since the Casse have no real enemies on the entire british islands (eleutheroi, but they wont exactly wage war will they?) im sure there was a famous tribe in scotland/ireland or wales that could be included.
I bet a lot of people would like to see the Goidols(sp? Irish blokes anyway) fleshed out a bit :2thumbsup:
Anyway thats the fun with the Casse, you can fight your little vs eleuthoroi wars for Britannia, then when you've conquered your world, launch the blue scourge on everyone else's :laugh4:
So why exactly do the Casse exist in EB, anyway? Seems like faction slots are a major limitation, and this one appears to do almost nothing. They didn't do anything historically, they don't do anything under AI control (I don't count conquering the British Isles as "doing anything" since no other faction really cares that they do so). I'm sure they're a fine hands-off faction for testing, and apparently they're fun for players. But people talk about Numidia, or Syracuse, or I'd think a second Sweboz-like faction up in the Poland/Russia area to resist bizarre AI Greek/Roman expansion in that direction would all be more valuable than a bunch of blue guys just sitting around in the corner swimming in huge piles of gold (I think AI Casse has over a million mnai banked in my campaign).Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaatu
Anyway, this is not meant as a criticism, I'm sure there's a good reason for the Casse being in the game. But I've been puzzled by that for quite some time, and this seems like a good chance to ask about it... ~:)
I'd suggest using the search feature to look for 'Casse'. There have been plenty of debates on the subject.
I think it will be worth to reduce some insignificant buldings' cost. Coz pay 3-5k for miserable 5 % happiness - is a insane. Also I'm wondering why markets are SO expensive and long ?
5% happiness is insignificant :inquisitive:? Before long, you'll need all the happiness you can get. Anyway, everything costs a lot in EB, which makes you have to take some bread or butter decisions. Unless you play one of the rich factions like Romans that is.